Which 70-200 mm lens would you buy.

page_tyson · Jun 13, 2010

I'm looking into buying a 70-200mm lens and have two picked out that I could probably afford. The first is Sigma's 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Apo Macro HSM II. The other is Canon's 70-200mm f/4 "L" series lens. I love the canon lens but wonder if I wouldn't be just as happy with the Sigma (I have only used the canon lens for about 5 mins, and have only seen the Sigma online). Overall, I want the lens that will give me the sharpest picture. I take alot of family/couples and children pictures almost all photos are outdoors during the day so light isn't a big issue. I do like to take wildlife pictures so I would probably purchase an extender along with the lens.

mwcfarms · Jun 13, 2010

So between these two then?

canon ef ef 70-200mm f/4l is usm This one weighs 1.3 pounds less lol. And it has a rebate atm.

Sigma | 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens | 579-101

I too have been looking at a 70 to 200, the sigma with the teleconverter for wildlife and honestly the 450 price difference is what would sell me. I hear its a great lens although I think you lose some sharpness at 200 from reviews but that being said the Canon is a L lens so the quality I bet is 150% different. Kinda comparing two different class of lenses. Im cheap lol and still learning so for a starter lens will be choosing the Sigma. New glass is always fun, good luck with which ever you choose. Im interested into what the pro's say who have used these lenses.

page_tyson · Jun 13, 2010

Oh I guess I should also mention, the canon I'm looking at doesn't have the IS option. I kinda like the fact that Canon 7--200 f/4 (non IS) is so much lighter than the the more expensive IS. I figure as long as i'm shooting with alot of light I can adjust the shutter speed fast enough to compensate for not having the IS option. My main concern is knowing which one will produce the best picture. Is there a noticable difference in picture quality between the two lenses?

Dao · Jun 13, 2010

One thing to keep in mind that if you are planning to add a teleconverter, the 1.4x will rob 1 stop of light and 2x will rob 2 stops.

So your f/4 lens will become a f/5.6 for 1.4x. Not sure if AF will work on the 2x if used with the f/4 lens due to max aperture is f/8.

rufus5150 · Jun 13, 2010

Dao said:
So your f/4 lens will become a f/5.6 for 1.4x. Not sure if AF will work on the 2x if used with the f/4 lens due to max aperture is f/8.

Only on 1-series bodies. But hook a 2x tele to a sigma and you'll quickly forget about the reach as your image quality tanks.

Derrel · Jun 13, 2010

The sharpest picture will come from...a tripod-mounted lens...a good,solid tripod can turn an average lens into a good lens, if you know what I mean. Outdoors, in family or casual portraiture, you need to shoot around f/4.5 to f/4.8 for adequate depth of field on two-person shots, f/5.6 or even f/6.3 on groups that have any depth to them...both the Canon and the Sigma are going to be hitting their stride at f/4.5. For a long,long time, zooms of the 70-200 or 80-200 range were f/4.5 to f/3.8, tops, aperture-wise. The 70-200 f/4-L is sort of a revisiting of that older, lighter, more-compact lens sizing. You might find that you're more comfortable with the smaller,lighter Canon than with a larger, heavier 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

I really do not think that the Canon or the Sigma will demonstrate much of an optical advantage over one another, I really do not.

samal · Jun 13, 2010

This is amazing that I see this post today. I am reassembling my gear after a year hiatus and just purchased both lenses in mint condition and now I have to make up my mind which one to keep and which one to sell. I read reviews and Sigma is getting hits on front focusing and being softer. My example of Sigma had been recalibrated at factory service for front focusing issue, by a previous owner, so I decided to do some testing

I ran the tests today, I set up a camera on a good Manfrotto tripod, picked the object, selected centered AF mode, and pointed camera to an object - my neighbors chimney

.

Then I took shots at apertures 2.8, 4, 8 and 16 with Sigma, metering at center point and without exposure compensation, at 70mm and 200mm, using 2 sec delayed shutter, then I replaced the lens without moving the camera or tripod and shot with apertures of 4, 8 and 16 with Canon, again metering dead center.

I will post pictures tomorrow from work, Comcast modem took a crap and I am waiting for repairman to come over after tomorrow, I am using a work laptop with Verizon wireless card now, and to upload pictures using it is a *****.

So, I see that at 2.8 Sigma is somewhat soft, at 4.0 it is still a bit softer than Canon L - especially at 200mm. at 8 and 16 it's very hard to tell the exported jpegs appart, but looking at raw images in Lightroom, I can still see that Sigma is a tiny bit softer. On the other hand, Sigma is letting significantly more light in even at smaller apertures, with metering set at the dead center, Sigma pictures came a little more exposed that Canon.

Sigma is a great lens and you can beat the value for the money, I just need to decide how important f/2.8 for me vs. better AF of Canon.

At this point I am inclined to keep Canon lens and sell Sigma. pics will follow tomorrow.

that said, I had the same Sigma lens last year and took many great pictures with it at 200 mm, here are some examples:

Scatterbrained · Jun 13, 2010

I'm a fan of fast glass so I'd go with the sigma 2.8. I've heard that the new Sigma 2.8 is supposed to be close to the Canon 70-200 2.8 is mark 1, of course, that's just what I've heard.
As far was weight, I've used my 70-200 2.8 is as a walkaround lens several times with no issues, I think having a good strap helps.

ifi · Jun 13, 2010

As mentioned a tripod will help you a lot. Anything with 2.8 will work better as a portrait lens.

page_tyson · Jun 13, 2010

Awesome thanks for the help. I found a sigma lens in new condition for $500. Sounds like a good deal right?

TiCoyote · Jun 14, 2010

Some people are very happy with their Sigmas, but I also hear about a lot of malfunctions. TheDigitalPicture loves the Canon 70-200 f/4.

samal · Jun 14, 2010

AlexL · Jun 14, 2010

My wallet just exploded looking at those photos.

samal · Jun 14, 2010

AlexL said:
My wallet just exploded looking at those photos.

well, ran another series of shots - this time not changing shutter speed from lens to lens, not trusting metering in my camera. I just metered using my 17-50 lens and used it for both lenses.

with equal exposure, canon is still sharper on the outside, but in the center, both lenses are equally good. interesting but with WB set to cloudy, Sigma produced much warmer colors and shots still came out exposed more with Sigma, even at the same aperture and shutter.

After I used LR to match histogram Sigma image to one of Canon as good as I could, I really could hardly see any difference. With all that equal, I think I will keep Sigma as I really like that extra stop that I can use

so, I have Mint condition less than a year old (by date code) Canon 70-200 L f/4 with box, and clean warranty card for sale - $500 plus shipping

page_tyson · Jun 15, 2010

Thanks for all of the replies, I went with the sigma cause I found one locally for $575 (virtually new). And I couldn't be happier with this lens. I was amazed by how sharp the images are and the few shots I have indoors and out are awesome.