70-200mm lens - Canon or Sigma?

A

AlistairW

Suspended / Banned
Messages
81
Name
Alistair
Edit My Images
Yes
Help appreciated. I definitely want to get an f2.8 non-IS lens (well IS is what I'd really want but can't budget for). I'm torn though. Sigma is about £600 whereas Canon is about £1,000. That's a big price differential. What is the experience of others? Is it a no brainer in favour of the Canon, or are any differences sufficiently marginal to make the Sigma the better value for money?

I'd be really interested to have the views of people with experience of these lenses.

Thanks,

Alistair
 
It doesnt matter what the lens is.. 70-200 or 24-70 or anything else... a canon lens on a canon camera will always produce betetr results than a non canon lens... I am guessing nikon owners will say the same about nikon lens on nikon bodies..

Sigma lenses are great.. had lots oncluding the 70-200 which is a great lens and will do just about anyhting you want it to.. it will produce great pictures... but the canon equivelant will be slightly better...

you have to decide if you want very good.. or very good plus a bit ....
 
The Canon 70-200 is a better performer than the Sigma.

I disagree with the statement from KIPAX though. The Sigma 24-70 HSM performs much better in my experience than the Canon varient.

Sigma does have some other lenses that beat the Canon too.

Overall though over the entire range Canon's are better.
 
I have the sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM II and I seriously doubt the canon version is worth the extra.

The sigma delivers stunning IQ with very fast and silent AF and I couldn't really ask for more on a zoom. The only real advantage I can see with the Canon is the weather proofing.

Ps - I'm normally a canon purist but this lens changed my mind!!
 
Last edited:
to be honest id be surprised if you notice the difference between the 2 makes, i mean we've got of the 2 sigmas in our house and theyre sharp and produce great results as it is. had prints blown up to A3 for customers etc so not soft at all.

odd jim said:
The only real advantage I can see with the Canon is the weather proofing.
Click to expand...

which on a 40D is a mute point
 
unless you have or have had both sigma and canon I dont understand the relevance of posting... its already been made quite clear the sigma is a good lens.. people keep posting with guesses? that the canon wouldn't be better... I used the sigma for a couple of years and thought it was fantastic... but the canon one is better.. it allowed me to crop in more because of the betetr quality ... :)
 
KIPAX said:
unless you have or have had both sigma and canon I dont understand the relevance of posting... its already been made quite clear the sigma is a good lens.. people keep posting with guesses? that the canon wouldn't be better... I used the sigma for a couple of years and thought it was fantastic... but the canon one is better.. it allowed me to crop in more because of the betetr quality ... :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, why would you have both, that would be silly.

On here as long as we don break the rules we can post what we like, be it an opinion or fact.

I have seen a lot of shots taken with the canon and I own the sigma, based on choice so feel that I can comment on this thread.
 
odd jim said:
Sorry, why would you have both, that would be silly.
Click to expand...

seriously? you dont want to take a minute first? :) I said have or have had both.. I ahve.. sigma then later canon... I htink many others have had both of many different lenses... not really all that silly..

odd jim said:
On here as long as we don break the rules we can post what we like, be it an opinion or fact.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you cant.. I said theres no relevance because your not comparing.. your guessing..

odd jim said:
I have seen a lot of shots taken with the canon and I own the sigma, based on choice so feel that I can comment on this thread.
Click to expand...

Now that is silly! :)


Wind yer neck in son... its a debate not an argument :)
 
KIPAX said:
seriously? you dont want to take a minute first? :) I said have or have had both.. I ahve.. sigma then later canon... I htink many others have had both of many different lenses... not really all that silly..

Nobody said you cant.. I said theres no relevance because your not comparing.. your guessing..

Now that is silly! :)

Wind yer neck in son... its a debate not an argument :)
Click to expand...

Seriously, are you for real? Or have you been promoted to some sort of TP god ? Who are you to start telling people what they can and can't post, then becoming some sort of keyboard warrior telling people to "wind their neck in"

The question the op asked is exactly the same one I asked myself back in December. I did a lot of research, digging and playing and decided that the sigma was the same lens in all intensive purposes to the canon. For half the price.

I'm sure while you might not be interested in hearing it, the op might.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Seriously, are you for real? Or have you been promoted to some sort of TP god ?.
Click to expand...

wow ...i was sure you where going to go for my spelling.. but you went complete the other way :)
 
I think the OP asked if the diferences were marginal, and not worth the price premium. This is always the question with regard to any third party lens against Manufacturers own offerings. Is the difference worth £400, probably not, but it depends on your criteria. If you want the absolute perfection in IQ you have to pay a hefty premium for lenses that produce that quality. For many of us lesser mortals that may be more financially challenged and unwilling to throw limitless cash at the hobby Third party lenses can frequently offer 99.9% of the IQ, that very small extra bit has a cost.

I chose the Sigma 150-500 against the more usual route of the Canon 100-400 and don't regret the decision one bit, I could have afforded the Canon as well, if I lost the Sigma I'd have no hesitation about buying another.

It's a bit like the old story in the early days of PC's that no one ever got fired for buying IBM. How many do that nowadays, it's like Mercedes and BMW, you pay more for the badge against a Ford.
 
artyman said:
I think the OP asked if the diferences were marginal, and not worth the price premium. This is always the question with regard to any third party lens against Manufacturers own offerings. Is the difference worth £400, probably not, but it depends on your criteria. If you want the absolute perfection in IQ you have to pay a hefty premium for lenses that produce that quality. For many of us lesser mortals that may be more financially challenged and unwilling to throw limitless cash at the hobby Third party lenses can frequently offer 99.9% of the IQ, that very small extra bit has a cost.
Click to expand...

Bob on... a better explanation than my first reply saying

KIPAX said:
Sigma lenses are great.. had lots oncluding the 70-200 which is a great lens and will do just about anyhting you want it to.. it will produce great pictures... but the canon equivelant will be slightly better...

you have to decide if you want very good.. or very good plus a bit ....
Click to expand...


I was sigma all the way as a hobbyist.. had the 17-35 (is that it?) the 24-70 the 70-200 and the 120-300 ... all great lenses i couldnt fault one bit... but the canon lenses IMHO are better and when i stepped up to earning i went for the better lens.


I dont understand how anyone can compare a lens they havent got.. it just doesn seem possible and is surely guesswork which the OP doesnt deserve....sigmas are great we all agree that :)
 
Ok - didn't mean to provoke a fight. Actually each of the responses is helpful to me in it's own way. I was expecting people probably to have owned one or other rather than both, but it's helpful to know if others have gone the cheaper route and regretted it.
I had taken it as read that the Canon is the superior lens, but from what I'm reading and from the reviews posted, I'm also feeling that the Sigma will adequately meet my needs and not leave me thinking "If only . . ."

Now I've got to think about OS or not. Too many decisions!

Thanks all,

Alistair
 
AlistairW said:
, I'm also feeling that the Sigma will adequately meet my needs and not leave me thinking "If only . . ."
Click to expand...

haaa.. that will only happen if you dont go to shows and dont try other peoples equipment :) seriosuly.. i was happy wiht my sigma 120-300 until it went away to be fixed.. i used a fixed focul prime canon for a week or so and havent looked back since.....i would be a richer man now and just as happy with my lens if that sigma hadnt broke
 
Laudrup said:
Might as well buy the best and go for the Canon, even second hand I'd take it over a new Sigma.
Click to expand...

Why? Have you tried a sigma 70-200 EX II? Or seen what it's capable of?
 
Last edited:
I've tried both lenses and the Canon was more impressive. Not as impressive as my Nikon 70-200mm VR II, but the Canon was still better than the Sigma which had the usual Sigma characteristics of being a bit soft at the long end and other disappointing Sigma traits. Go buy Sigma if you can't afford anywhere near the Canon/Nikon equivalent, but if you can get a clean second hand copy of the real deal then go for that. As for seeing what it can do yeah but the internet is full of pictures on Flickr of some good shots with a 75-300 probably, doesn't mean I'd buy one.
 
Why has no one mentioned Sigmas QA issues?
When I was after a UWA lens I was tempted by the Sigma but another member stated in my thread that he tried several Sigma 10-20's in a shop to find a copy he was happy with.
Again, a few weeks ago I was thinking about getting a Sigma 150-500 OS and yet again another member posted saying he had to take his back to due focussing issues.
I won't argue that this is only two people out of thousands of users and yes I could have bought two good copies but I've read more about people having a bad experience with Sigma than I have with Canon lenses.
I ended up paying more for a new Canon 10-22 and a used 100-400L but I felt happier and more confident.

Obviously there are plenty of happy Sigma users (fabs has been happy with 7 of them) and I've seen plenty of good, sharp shots taken with them.
Used wouldn't bother me so much if I was buying from someone here who posted good sample shots.
Although I wasn't orginally happy with the difference in prices, personally I prefer a hassle free life than take a chance.
If money is tight then I totally accept the Sigma route but if one can justify the cost of a Canon, then it makes more sense if like me, you don't like the element of risk.
 
artyman said:
it's like Mercedes and BMW, you pay more for the badge against a Ford.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite true, it's well known that German engineering is a leader.
Companies like Ford tend to copy ideas that the likes of Mercedes spend millions on via F1 development that eventually become affordable to production cars.
Ford do not also produce every engine they use, they sometimes colaborate with other companies and that engine will be available in cars produced by both companies.
I won't argue about your point with some 'badges' but you picked a wrong one for this debate :)

op, sorry for going off topic.
 
i have had 2 siggy 70-200mm and both have been very good, the non hsm one i had for my pentax was sharper than my hsm one wide open, but both were very good, i now have a 70-200mm nikon vr1 and it is without a doubt sharper wide open and does produce better pics. was it worth the £900 second hand, easy answer yes the af speed is blisteringly fast and the build is just worlds apart from the sigmas, also its weather sealed.
my fav lens is still my siggy 50-500mm os just for the fact it has such a range but is sharp and the af is fast and i just love it, only downside is the lens coating is crud, and marks easy.
 
Last edited:
iI have owned every single variant of the Sigma canon fit and while some of the variants are very good some are total dogs, and quality control is also an issue with Sigma, the Canon which ive also owned 3 seperate ones were all superb.

Fact is if you want to guarantee yourself a quality weather sealed built like a tank lens with blistering speed AF go for the Canon or if you want to take a risk and possibly end up with a soft wide open, horrible Bokeh but a bit cheaper lens then take a gamble go for the Sigma.

Guaranteed quality or gamble, your money your choice.




.
 
Last edited:
wow.. this went a bit downhill then.

KIPAX said:
I was sigma all the way as a hobbyist.. had the 17-35 (is that it?) the 24-70 the 70-200 and the 120-300 ... all great lenses i couldnt fault one bit... but the canon lenses IMHO are better and when i stepped up to earning i went for the better lens.
Click to expand...

there are people using the sigmas to earn money too (hi :p)

other than that im not going to waste my breath in this thread arguing about it, other than im currently 4 for 4 on great copy sigmas so the QA "issue" hasnt reared its head here (try and find my WHF pics in the zoo crit section for some sig 70-200 shots).
 
Last edited:
(that sounded a bit harsher than it was meant, just meant im not going to bicker about a 1000 quid lens being better than a 600 quid lens. whether the OP will notice 400 quid difference is another matter)
 
Intersting reading.

Well I had the same problem and found the canon to be better in the research I carried out. I prefer the colour and the auto focus.

I was lucky to find a great second hand Canon at a lesser price than the Sigma.
 
neil_g said:
(that sounded a bit harsher than it was meant, just meant im not going to bicker about a 1000 quid lens being better than a 600 quid lens. whether the OP will notice 400 quid difference is another matter)
Click to expand...

Oh come Neil, it's like you to back down from a good fight :D
 
My canon 70-200 f2.8 is L MK2 is coming today ordered it from kerso can't wait :D thought about the siggy but watched some reviews digitalrev on YouTube puts them up against eachother the canon wins especially on build quality but also on iq but the siggy is still good if on a budget :D
 
Thanks everyone for the replies. Obviously there's no right answer to this, but it does help to get the experience of people like yourselves. I find it much more meaningful than magazine reviews. Still torn about it at the moment though . . .

Alistair
 
Alistair, i personally think the only choice you face is a matter of affordability, if you can afford the Canon buy it.
 
I was in the same position, the Canon 70-200L f2.8 mkI is the better lens but for me the differential is not worth the extra. So I went for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 MkII and have been perfectly happy with it. I'm not a pro nor do I make money from photography, I'm just a happy snapper so I'm happy with the lesser Sigma. I find its AF fast enough, and it's also sharp enough for what I need. The Canon is slightly faster to focus and slightly more consistent. I should never has used the Canon 70-200L mkII as I now have severe gear lust, but replacing the Sigma is way down on my wish list.

Some (underexposed) shots here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jj_glos/sets/72157624935319562/with/4980501313/

 
I just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion for their helpful comments. Your (competing?) advice has been very helpful. In the end I've bought a 2nd hand non-IS Canon for around about the same as a new non-IS Sigma. It should arrive in the next day or two - then I'll need to find some good sports action or something to try it out on. I'll post some images once I get them.

Thanks again,

Alistair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top