CANON OR SIGMA

J

jkerry2782

Suspended / Banned
Messages
74
Edit My Images
No
I am after a 70-200mm 2.8 lenses for use in low light in churchs and so on.

which one would people go for, the canon or sigma one.
 
Depends on the depth of your pockets.

Sigma IQ varies from lens to lens, they never seem to be consistent. You might get a cracker, you might not.

From what I've read the Canon has the edge especially at edge of frame and wide open.

With deep enough pockets add "IS" on the canon lens.
I did and dont regret it
 
Canon 70-200 IS for me.

With Sigma, I'm not confident that their QC is up to scratch and some versions are sharp, others ain't unfortunately, luck of the draw.

AF is undoubtedly faster on Canon lenses, as is motor noise and much less chance of getting a dud. IQ is simply stunning, super duper on my "copy".

At the end of the day, it's all down to your budget. With this lens, you do get what you pay for, having said that their have been rumblings that Canon are bringing out the second generation of the 70-200s. How true that is is very doubtful as Canon keep their plans uber secret.

So if you have the money, the 70-200 2.8L IS is very recommended by most, but if you get a good Sigma copy, then they are superb value for money :)
 
I've got the Canon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and I have to say I absolutely adore my Sigma, (I must have a good one!)

It's a heck of a lot lighter than the Canon and therefore a lot easier to hand hold in the first place. I have shot the Canon f2.8 IS back to back on a 1Ds and I'd pick my Sigma anytime.

To qualify that I'm 5'4" and female, if you are 6'3" and can happily hand hold a tank of a lens down to 1/30 sec then fill your boots and get the Canon. Personally I find the lighter weight of the Sigma negates having to have the IS and saves me about £600 with which I can buy a couple of Pocket Wizards and an 85mm f1.8 and still be left with change!
 
AliB said:
I've got the Canon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and I have to say I absolutely adore my Sigma, (I must have a good one!)

It's a heck of a lot lighter than the Canon and therefore a lot easier to hand hold in the first place.
Click to expand...
I think somebody's getting a bit confused here Ali.

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM weighs 705g.
The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II weighs 1345g, or very nearly twice as much.

Even the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM at 1310g is lighter than the Sigma.
 
I really want Sigma to release a version with OS that come in about the price of the non IS canon one as I think that would be enough to tempt me away from my bargaintastic 70-210 f4
 
No-one's mentioned Tamron as an alternative? They've got a new 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro - Not sure how the price compares to the Sigma though, but there seem to be fewer reports about Tamron build quality....

Oh, and it only weighs 40.6oz (1150g) (without tripod mount) apparently.

Currently £479.99 @ wahrehouse express.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top