Which 70-200 f2.8?

M

Mike.

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently looking into a 70-200 lens. Im not too sure which one to go for. The Canon one is quite a substantial amount of money, so that has left me 2 options I guess.
The Tamron 70-200 or the Sigma 70-200...

What are people experiences with both, and what would you recommend or not as the case may be?
 
From what people say the Canon is well worth the cash....that's where my money would be going, even if it meant saving a little more. Prices are dropping slightly with the release of the IS II version as well.
 
I had the same decision for my D300 recently.... to cut a long story short; the Sigma has faster focusing, the Tamron would seem to be a little sharper. I went for a second hand older (pre macro) Sigma as they are deemed to be sharper and I'm very happy, but I'm sure plenty will say the newer Sigma is sharp too...
 
Big_Ham said:
From what people say the Canon is well worth the cash....that's where my money would be going, even if it meant saving a little more. Prices are dropping slightly with the release of the IS II version as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am tempted to save up the extra for the Canon version, I will keep an eye out for prices dropping on it..
Out of the 3 I suggested the Tamron is my least favourite..
 
If you can live without IS, the siggy is an excellent lens, the Sigma 1.4 TC works very well with it.

And as a walkabout lens, it's a lot lighter & more compact than the canon.
 
The sigma is defo better than a tamron, but if you can wait for the canon then thats better still. I would have liked the nikon vr but thr price put me off just a tad lol
 
I have the sigma pre macro, and am very impressed with the image quality, its also very compact and light for walking round.
 
Les McLean said:
If you can live without IS, the siggy is an excellent lens, the Sigma 1.4 TC works very well with it.

And as a walkabout lens, it's a lot lighter & more compact than the canon.
Click to expand...
You have pretty much summed up how I would set it up too... I don't really need IS and was looking at getting the 1.4 TC, I was tempted by the 2.0TC but read somewhere that the 1.4 provided slightly better results, albiet less focal length.
 
Mike. said:
You have pretty much summed up how I would set it up too... I don't really need IS and was looking at getting the 1.4 TC, I was tempted by the 2.0TC but read somewhere that the 1.4 provided slightly better results, albiet less focal length.
Click to expand...

Agree, I had the sigma 2.0 TC, and like most 2.0 TC's the image quality deteriorated, the 1.4TC was a dream though.
 
Between the sigma and the canon? The sigma, every time. It's just how I found it but the canon was the most over hyped lens I've ever owned.

If the choice was between the canon F4 and the siggy though that's a far harder question :)
 
I just ordered the Siggy 70-200 from ffordes based on great reviews from a lot of people. TP, flickr, photozone, dpreview and pretty much everywhere in between highly recommends the Sigma if money is a big part of the equation. A lot of people also say that if you get a good copy then you will struggle to pick them apart from the Canon and Nikon versions.
 
dod said:
If the choice was between the canon F4 and the siggy though that's a far harder question :)
Click to expand...

That's my current dilemma!! I could get both for an almost similar amount of money...
Apparently better IQ with the Canon, super sharp
Twice as much light coming into the lens with the Sigma, but slightly less IQ?

My head is like this: :bang: :cuckoo: :runaway:
 
Hmmm, I hadn't really considered the Canon F4... I'd primarily looked into F2.8's..
Doh.
 
sigma is excellent, love my gen 1 macro to bits. super sharp.

Les McLean said:
If you can live without IS, the siggy is an excellent lens, the Sigma 1.4 TC works very well with it.

And as a walkabout lens, it's a lot lighter & more compact than the canon.
Click to expand...

not by much though

sigma macro 2 - 1345g

canon 2.8mk2 - 1490g

although its still completely handholdable all day, even the GF can do it :D
 
If you don't need f/2.8, get the Canon f/4 (light as a twig and razor sharp).

Also consider that 'sharp' can be a relative description. What some people may consider sharp could be very soft for the others. Some call 18-55 sharp. I am not convinced about Sigma IQ from the one Macro mk2 sample I handled.
 
Unless you need f/2.8, the f/4 IS version is actually better in every respect.

I bought it in preference to the f/2.8, mainly for the weight issue.
 
Optically I am impressed with the tamron, very impressed but focus lets it down. I can cope with slow AF as I mainly use it for landscapes. Manual focus isn't great either though. Switching from AF to MF changes the focus so you can't use af then switch to mf to lock it. About 1/8th of a turn of the focus ring is all it takes to get from 95cm to infinity, so precisely focussing manually is really really fiddly.
 
daugirdas said:
Also consider that 'sharp' can be a relative description. What some people may consider sharp could be very soft for the others. Some call 18-55 sharp. I am not convinced about Sigma IQ from the one Macro mk2 sample I handled.
Click to expand...

depends if youre into pixel peeping i guess?

mine puts out cracking prints up to 10x8 so far (havent had any orders for anything larger yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top