70-200mm decisions!

chphoto

chphoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
945
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been asking myself whether to get the Canon F4L non-IS or the Sigma F2.8..

My mind has been made up.
I'm going to buy a Canon 70-200 F4L non-IS when I have the cash!
A friend of mine (kiteninja on here) let me use his awesome F2.8L non-IS today, and the some of the images are just stunning, compared to the 75-300 I use at the moment. I don't think I'll miss the extra light the F2.8 can give, because if the F4 is anywhere near as sharp as some of today's pics, I'll be a very happy lad!

Here's links to two sets from today on flickr, all un-edited photos...

Taken with my 400D & 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32244379@N02/sets/72157623715193382/

Taken with kiteninja's 5Dmk2 & 70-200mm F2.8L non-IS
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32244379@N02/sets/72157623590827017/
 
This is exactly the lens question I am asking myself. I am looking for a 70-200 for sports photography on my 40D, in particular mountain bike racing.

Am really looking for some opinions from users of either lens;

Sigma F2.8
Canon F4L

Both the non IS versions (that's down to cost TBH). Any views on which would be the better option. Sigma bit more money but faster. Or maybe they are both good & it is too close to call?
 
I needed to fill that 70-200 slot too but today I got the latest version mkII 70-200 f2.8L IS and I cannot believe how good it is. This zoom, be it a 2.8 or a 4 with or without IS is the best zoom Canon make I think. The new one is staggering, expensive but very WOW!

Any one you decide to go with will give you outstanding results


Forgot to add - I used to have the f4.0L a while ago and it was excellent, not sure about the newer sigma's but the older version was a bit soft wide open at 2.8
 
The f4 non IS I had was very impressive, prime like. Regret selling it.

The f2.8 IS I had was lovely too, heavy though. Again I regret selling it.

I doubt there is a bad L lens in the range,for me, its about if you need f4 or f2.8 and if IS is going to be an advantage or not.

Cant help with the Sigmas but from what you have said I would try to get a try with a f4 non IS. It impressed the hell out of me.
 
Marac said:
I needed to fill that 70-200 slot too but today I got the latest version mkII 70-200 f2.8L IS and I cannot believe how good it is. This zoom, be it a 2.8 or a 4 with or without IS is the best zoom Canon make I think. The new one is staggering, expensive but very WOW!
Click to expand...



*Repeats*

I am not jealous
I am not jealous...

Nope.

It`s just not working!:D
 
I'm not jealous either... because I too have the f2.8 IS II ;)

4574205763_b3b61d2433_o.jpg


:)
 
tomblacklock said:
from what i have read the 70-200 f4 L IS meant to be the sharpest canon 70-200
Click to expand...

I can confirm it's a cracker! I sometimes take this lens with a 1.4 extender in preference to the 100-400 for simple portability. That doesn't stop me thinking :bonk::bonk:about an f2.8 version though for the extra stop under low light conditions but would I want to be carrying the extra weight all the time? Probably not. And could I justify two 70-200 lenses? Probably not.:bang::bang:

I hope your new lens brings you much joy.
 
Take the Canon - particularly if you want to shoot motorsport.
 
Nick T said:
I'm not jealous either... because I too have the f2.8 IS II ;)

4574205763_b3b61d2433_o.jpg


:)
Click to expand...

Nick, no offence, but if that image looks good to you, can I suggest you get your monitor profiled quick smart. The colours are awful.

If this was an artistic decision that don't do it again - you've made the poor lass looks like she has a terrible case of jaundice!
 
puddleduck said:
Nick, no offence, but if that image looks good to you, can I suggest you get your monitor profiled quick smart. The colours are awful.

If this was an artistic decision that don't do it again - you've made the poor lass looks like she has a terrible case of jaundice!
Click to expand...

I quite like the colours. Who's to say they always have to be accurate?
 
Tough one.

Sharpness : At 200mm f/4 the MKI sigma and f/4 canon should be more or less equal. Of course with the Sigma you can go to f/2.8. 70mm f/4 the canon will have the edge. (IMO the sharpness of the MKI siggy and f/4 canon shouldn't really be your deciding factor because they both ought to be sharp)

AF: Sigma should be faster and more accurate because of the f/2.8, but the f/4 is faster rack to rack. In practice both are about equal (unless in low light (sigma) or your shooting things at 2m then at 15m then at 5m (canon). If it's one continous movement or just the odd change (portraits, bikes/cars, rubgy you'll be okay, football probably less so)

Size: This is the biggest decider. Canon is small and light. Sigma is medium size, medium weight.



Overall: I'd weigh up if you need the f/2.8 or size. WHich is most important. Both will take the 1.4x should you wish. Neither will like the 2x (too soft).
 
I've got the canon 70-200 F4 non IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS

The F4 is small, light, pin sharp even at f4 and a fantastic lens for the money. I've used this outdoors in awful weather without a problem. Is the sigma weatherproof?
The 2.8 just gives me a great depth of field for sports. It is a lot heavier (but I don't notice when using) and the IS eats the battery quicker.
 
Picture looks fine on my screen...is it cross processed?
 
we've just picked up our 2nd sigma (macro gen 1), either we're incredibly lucky or too many people pixel peep but both of ours are sharp throughout.

one of the mods on here will even tell you the sigma is comparible to the canon 2.8..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top