Sigma vs Canon 70-200

nickjohnwatson

nickjohnwatson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,307
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been looking around at getting a better quality zoom lens, at the moment i have the canon 55-250 but would really like something with a wider aperture, not really too fussed about the loss of focal length as dont really shoot wildlife.

I borrowed my dads canon 70-200 F4L a few times and its a cracking lens, but for the same sort of price 2nd hand you can get the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 non OS.

I'd like to hear from people who have had/have the sigma to see how it compares?

I'm not in a rush to get one and havent got a problem with the canon its a fantastic lens but just wondered what peoples experience of the sigma is as obviously is has the wider aperture which appeals.

Thanks

Nick
 
quality... canon better than sigma..

usability f2.8 better than f4


seriosuly.. what else did you want to know? is a sigma 2.8 better than the canon f4 ? I ahve had a lot of sigma lens and i will tell you the same as anyone else.. they are great... but canon slightly better IMHO .. however 2.8 is better than f4..

its two different lens...you need to decide based on your needs..
 
Cheers for the reply :)

I guess I just wondered what the sigma was like for sharpness etc, as I like that the canon is sharp at f4 but if the sigma isn't great wide open then it would be a bit pointless to compromise on the canon for the wider aperture of the sigma to not get the benefits if that makes sense?

Thanks again
 
Loads of threads on this before, a quick search will bring you all the opinions under the sun!
 
Just to ad a footnote ... cameraworld have a 70-200 F4L going for £369 (if I remember rightly from the other day)
 
Oh, and BTW my non OS is very sharp at f/2.8!
 
I just picked up a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM used for a killer price! If you can find one in good nick, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you get it over the Sigma. I've used both and the Canon just seems to perform better!
 
I've got a 70-200L F4 and can't fault it. I would maybe have loved a 70-200 F2.8 IS II but serious money!!

the F4 L is pin sharp at F4 and throughout the focal range. I've heard that some Sigma F2.8's are a bit soft at 2.8. If you end up using them at F4 to get sharpness then why pay the extra.

Mine doesn't have IS so I just need to choose sensible shutter speeds and push ISO if required (most decent cameras can cope with a stop or two worth of ISO).

IMHO the F4L is great lens at a complete bargain price.

Kenny
 
neil_g said:
i heard the loch ness monster is real.. :D

never seen any softness in either of ours.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's really a case of them being 'soft', it's more to do with them not being quite as sharp as the Canon versions. With the exception of the original Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS), the Canons do seem to outperform the Sigmas in terms of sharpness.
 
You mean the Loch Ness monster isn't real!!!

Fair point, I've never used a Sigma myself and so can only go on reviews which seam to rate the Cannon(s) as sharper wide open.

The thing for me was price v performance, the 70-200 f4 L performs amazingly for a lens of its price. Money no object I'd buy the Canon 2.8 IS II. If my budget had been higher I'd have seriously considered the Sigma 2.8 but I think it was working out at approx twice the price of mine.

They'll all take great photos....

Kenny
 
Is one of those things that you buy the sigma now and it will work great and good performance, but at some point you will want to sell the sigma for the canon.
 
badboy1984 said:
Is one of those things that you buy the sigma now and it will work great and good performance, but at some point you will want to sell the sigma for the canon.
Click to expand...

I've had my Sigma nearly 4 years.

Never wanted to swap it for the Canon (I've used the Canon, didn't see any difference, even with heavy cropping).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've had my Sigma nearly 4 years.

Never wanted to swap it for the Canon (I've used the Canon, didn't see any difference, even with heavy cropping).
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Sigma is bad. My last 70-200 f2.8 is a Sigma as well. Serve me well and had no problem with it, i sold it for a nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR instead simply because of the price i got for second hand and it offer me VR and weather sealing, where as my last sigma didn't have OS and weather seal.

I'm not saying it is bad but for people like me i will go for the camera's own brand of lens at some point.
 
Im thinking of getting this lens 70-200 f4 is..any good bargains out there? Or interest free options?
 
DSO said:
Im thinking of getting this lens 70-200 f4 is..any good bargains out there? Or interest free options?
Click to expand...

For best new prices, check out;

http://camerapricebuster.com/

The retailers that do finance are usually slightly more expensive and are over 6-12month periods.
As well they do up to 4 yrs finance but at up to 19.9% APR!
What i've done in the past is apply for a new credit card with balance transfer offer (check out moneysaving expert for best offers). when i know i've been accepted, i then buy the lens/body i want on my existing card, and transfer the balance onto the new card with the offer on! you'll have to pay a small transfer fee (my last one was only 1.5%), but you'll effectively then have anything up to 24 mths interest free! (as long as you don't use the card again and set up a DD to pay it off every month!!)
 
Check out photozone.de

It is clear that by 200mm Canon is still as clear wide open while Sigma is not so good. If 200mm setting was more important I'd get Canon, if anything for the more compact size given performance. However if you shoot some certain portraits, a bit of softness can hide a lot of unwanted details.
 
I have an old model Sigma, and as Kipax will verify, its been dragged around football grounds for years and took an absolute beating, but its by far and away the sharpest lens Ive ever owned, beats all my L lenses hands down. I know its just my experience and other people have probably had contradicting ones, but any length, any aperture, its absolutely pin sharp.
 
My Sigma 70-200 is barely off the camera and is sharp at 2.8. I would still love the Canon IS 2.8 but I used the version ll IS and honestly couldn't see the difference. That said I've had great experience with Sigma and would love to add a 120-300 and a 1.4 tele to the fold at some stage so makes sense to stay with them.

Stevie
 
daugirdas said:
Check out photozone.de

It is clear that by 200mm Canon is still as clear wide open while Sigma is not so good. If 200mm setting was more important I'd get Canon, if anything for the more compact size given performance. However if you shoot some certain portraits, a bit of softness can hide a lot of unwanted details.
Click to expand...

If you went by photozone.de reviews, you'd miss out on some cracking lenses and just shoot brick walls and test charts all day on the lenses you did buy...
 
my choice words for review sites, if we went by review sites then I wouldn't be able to sell my motorsport images as my 60D isnt fast enough to do so....... Oh wait, yes it is. haha

I am interested in this topic though as I at some point shall be getting a 2.8 if I dont buy the 50-150 2.8 I have seen
 
I spent many an hour looking into these 2 lens and settled on the canon. F2.8 verses F4 isn't that big an issue really 90% of the time you get round it the other 10% I up the ISO a stop or so. IQ IMHO is better throughout the range on the canon especially at the longer end. F2.8 again isn't big issue when looking for IQ as both perform better opened up.
 
The biggest single issue with Sigma is the variability of each sample. If you get a good one then they can be awesome but there are far too many inferior quality samples out there it seems. Personally I'd only buy a Sigma lens used now, where I could check sample images taken with it before purchase. New ones seem to be far too much of a gamble.

That said, I appreciate there is some variability with Canon too (my 70-200 needed calibration from new) but their strike rate with good copies seems far higher than Sigma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top