Canon or sigma!???

friesianfan69

friesianfan69

Suspended / Banned
Messages
769
Name
Donna
Edit My Images
Yes
Want to buy the canon 70-200 mk 2 f/2.8 lens,
Hubby thinks I should buy the sigma equivalent!
It's a lot cheaper and as good he says after reading reviews???
I can't see it personally.
What are your views?
 
If you can afford the Canon go for that lens.

Better build quality, weather sealed and sorry but better image quality too.

I have a Mk1 Non IS and it's a fantastic lens.

If you buy the Canon you'll never be worried about upgrading your camera body but the Sigma may not work on future bodies.
 
I've just bought the f2.8 IS MkII trading a f4 non IS for it. It is a superb piece of kit. Build quality better than the f4. IS so quiet you're not even sure it's working. And image quality is top drawer. If you can afford it buy it. It feels like it will last a life time.
 
The Canon Mk2 is just so good, nothing else beats it. Majorly better if you want to use with extenders.

That's not to say the Sigma isn't also a good lens, and much more affordable - if you need f/2.8. But if you don't need f/2.8, 70-200L 4 IS is (virtually) as good as the Mk2, and dramatically lighter as well as cheaper.
 
Can't speak for Canon, but I've shot Nikon mount Sigma 70-200 for 6 months before I bought a VRII. You get what you pay for. The VRII justifies its price in comparison to the Sigma.
 
I started with sigma, but then upgraded to the canon, it may be more expensive but worth the extra money !
 
I've had the Canon F4 IS, now got a Sigma f2.8 HSM II for Nikon and I have to say it's closer than I thought it would be between the 2. The Canon does have the edge in every deparment but not by much in any of them (apart from weather sealing).

That said, if you can justify it, get the Canon (if you haven't already clicked the order button).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top