Sigma or Canon?

luis_relampago

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
Location
Houston
Website
www.topimage.vze.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I am saving some money to buy a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS, but my question has anyone here has tested or owns a Sigma 70-200 F2.8, the question is how good the quality of this glass against Canon's, because if is the same or similar I won't mind saving me 1K on that glass.
 
I am saving some money to buy a Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS, but my question has anyone here has tested or owns a Sigma 70-200 F2.8, the question is how good the quality of this glass against Canon's, because if is the same or similar I won't mind saving me 1K on that glass.


Look it up, the reviews are all over the Web. I own it, and i can attest to its quality. A superb piece of glass. But it's heavy and bulky. Not unlike the Canon, especially the IS version.

And the difference is right there, of course. If you have the $$$ for the IS, go for the Canon. If it's between the Canon non-IS and the Sigma, for me the choice is clear - Sigma.
 
www.photozone.de has test results on both lenses.
I've been reading that Garbz and it's interesting results however they're in a lab shooting at test cards. The don't mention that the Canon is built like a tank that could almost be used under water and they don't include the use of the IS in practical situations.
I agree that the Canon is pricey but looking at the engineering I can nearly justify it, which is easier to do if you get paid in Euros and buy in Dollars (€1=$1.46 atm woohoo, almost 50% discount)
 
Similar to most lenses in comparison to Canon L lenses...the Canon is better but how much better? Maybe 15% better...maybe 5% better. The cost however, is 50-100% higher.

Some people are perfectly happy with the top quality 'off-brand' lenses. They are, after all, just as good or better than middle-of-the-pack Canon lenses. However, some people need that extra 10%...and even more people just really want to have the best avaliable...so they spend the extra $$$
 
I've been reading that Garbz and it's interesting results however they're in a lab shooting at test cards. The don't mention that the Canon is built like a tank that could almost be used under water and they don't include the use of the IS in practical situations.
I agree that the Canon is pricey but looking at the engineering I can nearly justify it, which is easier to do if you get paid in Euros and buy in Dollars (€1=$1.46 atm woohoo, almost 50% discount)

This is not at any way directed at Garbz (who is an uber cool person and a big help to us around here) but I don't find lens tests in the lab useful... sure, they can tell you which lens shoots a card (or wall) or whatever better... but they don't tell you the real world info you need to know.

Field tests are much more the thing, in my book.
 
the Canon is better but how much better? Maybe 15% better...maybe 5% better. The cost however, is 50-100% higher.

Thanks Mike, thats what I am trying to find out, balance the output, at the end we are striving for a better shot, but for the extra 1K the Canon glass needs to be for me at least 40 to 50% better than the Sigma. Is it?
 
Thanks Mike, thats what I am trying to find out, balance the output, at the end we are striving for a better shot, but for the extra 1K the Canon glass needs to be for me at least 40 to 50% better than the Sigma. Is it?

I don't understand why you compare the 70-200 f2.8 IS to the Sigma. Instead of the non-IS version.
Plus, the difference is less than 1K. It's closer to $800. And if you visit B&H now, you'll find a rebate which brings the gap to ~680.
 
Camarada Fidel what I am trying to find out is that if the IS alone on the canon glass worth the 1K extra? or can you get by with out it, and save the extra thousand dollars for another piece of glass.
 
The Canon (with IS) has (at least) two advantages. One is obviously IS...but the other is that it's a Canon L lens...(as per my post above). Is that worth $1000 to some people...yes.

The Canon 70-200 F2.8 L (non-IS) is a better direct comparison to the Sigma...and I'd guess that it's still a better lens...and of course, the price is closer.
 
What about longevity?
When I buy something I don't want to buy it twice because it fell apart the first time. Is the Sigma well built? Is it built like the Canon? Can it be used/worked every day and be expected not to fall apart? Maybe you don't need this sort of robustness like fancy dress shoes Vs hiking boots.
That needs to be factored in to the price.
 
The only reason to buy a Sigma/Tamron etc... when the exact lens is available by the brand is because you cannot afford it or you want to save money. Another reason might be that Canon/Nikon do not offer the lens you are looking for. But in general you are always better off buying the branded lenses they are better quality and will last you longer and yes they are worth the extra money. This all is not to say I have some kind of problem with Sigma/Tamron etc. I like their lenses and they are adecent alternative if you cannot afford a better lens.​
 
The resale value of a CAnon lens is better, that is all I can contribute.

When I sell used Canon lenses at eBay, they go for about 90% or more of their original price .... Sigma goes for about 70% ...

at least in my little statistics ... but this in Europe ...
 
I was using the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on my Rebel XT a few days ago and the IS is very good. I could get sharp shots at 200mm, 1/40th
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top