Canon 70-200mm F4L Or Sigma 70-200mm F2.8?

I was having this debate, and went for the sigma in the end. The reason being I already had a 70-300 and it wasn't fast enough for what I needed!

I'm sure the f/4 is perfect for some people, but I wasn't going to spend £400 on a lens that was only slightly sharper or slightly faster at autofocussing than my current one. Going to f/2.8 however, was enough of an upgrade for me to consider it worthwhile.

It's totally up to you though! The f/4 is considered (I think) to be the sharpest zoom canon makes, so if f/4 is sufficient, then go for it. It wasn't for me, and I couldn't afford the canon f/2.8, which is why I went for the sigma.

What do you intend on using it for?

Chris
 
chris321 said:
I was having this debate, and went for the sigma in the end. The reason being I already had a 70-300 and it wasn't fast enough for what I needed!

I'm sure the f/4 is perfect for some people, but I wasn't going to spend £400 on a lens that was only slightly sharper or slightly faster at autofocussing than my current one. Going to f/2.8 however, was enough of an upgrade for me to consider it worthwhile.

It's totally up to you though! The f/4 is considered (I think) to be the sharpest zoom canon makes, so if f/4 is sufficient, then go for it. It wasn't for me, and I couldn't afford the canon f/2.8, which is why I went for the sigma.

What do you intend on using it for?

Chris
Click to expand...

Well im the same with the canon f2.8 to much money, i will be using it for a few things but i like to get out early morning so thats why i was thinking 2.8.
 
GlasgowGunner said:
Well im the same with the canon f2.8 to much money, i will be using it for a few things but i like to get out early morning so thats why i was thinking 2.8.
Click to expand...

If low light is going to be an issue then the f/2.8 will probably suit you better. The Canon f/4 is probably sharper, but you could have the sharpest lens in the world, but if the shutter speed isn't high enough, you're still just going to have a blurry mess!

Bear in mind however that f/2.8 at 200mm gives a pretty narrow depth of field, especially if your subject is close. On my first outing with it I had only one shot that I considered acceptable, it's a whole new league getting what you want in focus!
 
chris321 said:
If low light is going to be an issue then the f/2.8 will probably suit you better. The Canon f/4 is probably sharper, but you could have the sharpest lens in the world, but if the shutter speed isn't high enough, you're still just going to have a blurry mess!

Bear in mind however that f/2.8 at 200mm gives a pretty narrow depth of field, especially if your subject is close. On my first outing with it I had only one shot that I considered acceptable, it's a whole new league getting what you want in focus!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the help and advice, off to purchase i think.
 
Personally I have the Canon f/4 which suits me fine, for now. I have no experience with the Canon 2.8 but I hear it's great but since that isn't an option I'll forget that for now.

My friend has a Sigma 2.8 and although he likes it, he says it is soft at 200mm. Not sure if he was unlucky and has a soft copy or if it is more widespread. Either way, if you think you need f/2.8 then the f/4 just will never satisfy you, no matter how good a lens it is.

Tom N.
 
I used to have the Sigma, it was excellent and sharp at 200mm at 2.8 - only slightly less so than the Canon. I only upgraded as I got an excellent price on the L.

Would heavily recommend it.
 
The one thing i will want to use this for is the Motorbike racing when the season returns.
 
I would suggest hiring the lens out before committing yourself to one.
 
Sigma is a cracking lens, I would definately take F2.8 over F4 any day of the week if you are going to be doing any low light photogrpahy of have need for faster shutter speeds.
 
having had both, i needed the 2.8 and couldnt afford the canon so went for the sigma. lovelly lens as is the f4 which is a damn sight easier to hold!

i am selling mines though, take a look in classifieds and your local too... :D
 
It's not quite as sharp (but then the canon f4 is one of the sharpest zooms ever apparently :S ), but faster AF, and well...I need f2.8, especially with the longer length, shooting in even remotely dark enviroments and I don't know how people could cope with the f4...

sigma.
 
Id agree with dave on the sigma, i would miss the f2.8 and to be honest ive never had anything but tac sharp results with the sigma unless you pixel peep your not going to noice
 
Ok people thanks for all the info, I think i will order the sigma then as i know the one i will be getting has been well looked after.

Does anybody have some shots from both lenses though?
 
I did have. I ran a series of tests on them both when I had them. Tripod mounted and 100%crops. I shot them both at f4 so it was a good level playing field.

Results?

The Canon was just a tad sharper and resolved greens a little better, they seemed a little more vibrant.

You have to remember though, that is pixel peeping and in the real world it's unusual to have people poring over 100% and 150% magnifications. The only reason I did the test was that the Sigma was on my 1Ds at a wedding and missed the focus. I put the pic into DPP and pulled up the focus point. It was half on and half off the subject so it was down to user error. i.e. I messed up the shot. It was only a candid of a bridesmaid on a bridge but I don't like to miss anything!

Which would I take out with me? Depends what I'm shooting. If it's going to be at f4 and above I'm more than happy with the Canon, it's smaller and lighter too. If I know I want to shoot at f2.8 either because of low light or because I want to use f2.8 for subject separation then I'd take the Sigma. My default for weddings this year has been the Sigma.

I've now just sold the Sigma to a weddings colleague and bought the f2.8IS because I got a really good deal on one and it's the best I can get for what I do.

But I kept the Canon f4 for when I don't want the weight of the f2.8 and it gives me a backup in case anything ever goes wrong with the f2.8 being a bit more complex. It really is that good that I would keep a £400 lens just because I love it.
 
Go for the Canon, you have to stop down the Sigma to f4 for sharpness, why carry the extra weight around? Also Canon autofocus is faster. No contest. If its sharper you can blow up the image more, effectively increasing the zoom range!
 
I've had exactly this decision to make recently and I plumped for the 2nd hand Canon f4 over the sigma. I agree with all those above about the benfits of the f2.8 in low light, but figured that most of my work is outdoor so shutter speeds less likely to be an issue and the f2.8 is simply too damn heavy (almost twice the weight of the f4) and what's the point of owning a lens if you're not going to be carrying it around with you.

So for me I decided the benefits of the f2.8 was outweighed by the practicalities of the size and weight of the thing... but others will have the opposite opinion... what ever you do make sure you have a good play with both before deciding
 
My dealer tried to push me towards the Sigma but I went for compactness and light weight and have regretted it often. If you even suspect that you might regret not doing so, go for the Sigma. It might be heavier but f2.8 might just matter.
 
I am also mulling this one over, I'd be very tempted with the f4 (Canon) rather than the 2.8 because of the weight. My view being with 2.8 I'd want IS to hand hold at the same shutter speed, more weight and cost.

Lots of comments about needing 2.8 instead of f4 in poor light, is this because the f4 struggles to focus? If its just to be able to use a faster shutter speed which the f4 wont give you (for the same Iso), why not just up the Iso and compensate for the one stop difference? Surely the lighter weight etc of the f4 actually makes it easier to hand hold at a slower shutter speed anyway.
I honestly cant see why the 2.8 is a better buy than the f4, maybe in the old film days when mid-roll iso change wasnt possible but now when we can do that and use high Iso so easily?

Matt
 
Easy Matt.

When I'm shooting a wedding in Church and the ISO is ALREADY as high as I'm prepared to go (1600 and 3200) and the shutter speed is only just hitting 1/60 sec then that extra stop is absoultely vital. I've been there two or three times this year. My other trick up my sleeve is to switch the the 85mm f1.8 and shoot at f2, even more light then!

This is why it's important to consider what the person asking for the advice intends to use the lens for. Outdoors the f4 is great, indoors? Not for me thanks :)

I'm only 5'4" (on a good day) and if I can manage shooting weddings with a 1Ds with a 70-200mm f2.8IS what's up with you wusses! (just kidding :))
 
AliB said:
Easy Matt.

When I'm shooting a wedding in Church and the ISO is ALREADY as high as I'm prepared to go (1600 and 3200) and the shutter speed is only just hitting 1/60 sec then that extra stop is absoultely vital. I've been there two or three times this year. My other trick up my sleeve is to switch the the 85mm f1.8 and shoot at f2, even more light then!

This is why it's important to consider what the person asking for the advice intends to use the lens for. Outdoors the f4 is great, indoors? Not for me thanks :)

I'm only 5'4" (on a good day) and if I can manage shooting weddings with a 1Ds with a 70-200mm f2.8IS what's up with you wusses! (just kidding :))
Click to expand...

Good points and useful in the decision process.
5'-4" - lower centre of gravity :)
I'd be tempted if doing a wedding indoors in poor light to use either my 85 or my 100 primes in that case and perhaps crop the 'negative' if required, although at those Iso's its probably going to get too noisy.
As you say it depends on what you want to shoot and if the cost of the lens justifies it's purchase. These fast quality zooms seem to be worth their cost in some cases.
Good to get feedback from someone who has used the kit being asked about in real world situations.
Matt
 
The thing to ask yourself is how often when you are outdoors shooting bikes are you going to need F2.8?

I too have recently been through this debate - and in the end I decided that the Canon 70-200 F4 will do what I need absolutely fine. My choice of motorsport is Bikes at oulton and rallying. I looked at my shots from when I had a 70-200 F2.8 and rarely was I shooting wide open anyway.

THe only real benefit of F2.8 is if you have a compatible Canon camera the wider aperture opens up use of the more accurate AF sensors. Still, my Canon 70-200 F4 is the fastest focussing zoom I've ever owned without these in use....
 
RichardtheSane said:
The thing to ask yourself is how often when you are outdoors shooting bikes are you going to need F2.8?

I too have recently been through this debate - and in the end I decided that the Canon 70-200 F4 will do what I need absolutely fine. My choice of motorsport is Bikes at oulton and rallying. I looked at my shots from when I had a 70-200 F2.8 and rarely was I shooting wide open anyway.

THe only real benefit of F2.8 is if you have a compatible Canon camera the wider aperture opens up use of the more accurate AF sensors. Still, my Canon 70-200 F4 is the fastest focussing zoom I've ever owned without these in use....
Click to expand...

Interesting point.
My son has a 28/135 on a 20D but my 50D focuses faster with the same lens, so I think the camera body may have an effect on what lens you buy.
 
DizMatt said:
interested in how the sigma 70-200 f2.8 compares to the sigma 50-150 f2.8
are they in a different league?
Click to expand...

Well i have a friend with the 50-150 f2.8 and was asking him the same question as he borrowed the 70-200 f2.8, He said go for the 70-200 as he wishes he had the extra 50mm there after using the 70-200.

That said he could not tell the picture quility apart at the same focal lengh's.
 
Well i have read through these posts and have to say im going Sigma.

Now i get all the points taken but i feel i would rather have the 2.8 just in the chance i would need to have it(which i think i will). Me not being overly funded either i cant jump out and buy another if it dont suit.

My plan is 2 lenses, No 1, The Sigma 70-200 f2.8, No 2, The sigma 17-70 which i have heard good words about.

I dont feel i would need anything more than this at this moment in time but was unsure about the zoom/tele lens so thought i would get some help here.


Many thanks people for the time.
 
I had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and really liked it, but then I tried a Canon 70-200 f4... the Canon was sharper, faster focusing and had better overall IQ (more contrasty images). Needless to say I changed to the Canon and haven't looked back since, sure it's a stop slower but I far prefer using the Canon.
 
Here is a thing and this is coming from somebody who knows nothing about camera bodys fancy bits of glass that cost hundreds of pounds.(this is the wife by the way no me).

She works at the local hospital, now when talking to her about this her words where,,,,
(wife) Well i know nothing about this but i would go for the Sigma.
(me) Why?
(wife) Well when i hear Sigma i think of great optics as they do a lot of optics in the hospital equipment but when i think Canon i think Printer.

Now i am in no way ripping into Canon as i like there stuff but from a person with know photography background does she have a point.

p.s This is not why i have picked Sigma but thought it was a good point.

p.p.s Sorry if i have started a war....
 
Only problem with sigma is getting a good copy, if you can save those pennies invest in the bigger more expensive lens, i too had the same issue between all three lens and im going to upgrade to a canon 2.8
 
sigma 2.8 every time. sharp all the way through, fast AF, built like a tank, personally i dont think its heavy in the slightest and hand hold it all day at events. its nice to have the option of 2.8 there when you need it. if you got the F4 and ran out of stops what would you do?
 
The sigma 17-70 which i have heard good words about
Click to expand...

Very nice lens- Only problem is that it's a bit 'soft', but nothing that PS can't cure. Otherwise well built and nice to use.

As to the Canon 70-200 F4. well, I've got one of 'em as well and it's bleedin' marvleeous. But if you want the extra bit of light....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top