Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sigma Or Canon 70-200 F2.8?  
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Hey guys/Girls,

Since this forum has been a great help to me in the past, I still need your help one more time.

I am going to buy me a new lens tomorrow, and did find as many info as I could on the internet.
There is just one source I had to check out, and that was this forum.
I can't make up my mind between the Canon 70-200 F2.8, or the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.
Offcourse I could just ask the seller, but I would also like some of your suggestions.

Both lenses must be good/perfect, but my concern is the price difference.
In Holland, the Sigma is 300€ cheaper then the Canon, SO my question is, has anybody around experienced both lenses, and what do you think?
From the 300€ I could buy a 1.4x converter that could help me when needing a little extra zoom.

Also a question I would like to ask, is what filters you suggest for spotting?
There will be a default UV filter on it, just to protect the lens from scratching, but are there any other filters you would recommend? Did you had any good experience with a filter when spotting? I would like to know that!

I can't just make up my mind,

Thank you for your time!


have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDullesguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7121 times:

Sorry I havn't tried both lenses..I got to do some shooting with the 70-200 F2.8 IS and man is it sharp! even at full zoom. I'm a firm believer of you get what you pay for..stick with the canon! Plus, if you ever decide to upgrade again down the line having a Canon will sell back just b/c of the name itself.



just my .02

Stephen



"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7095 times:

I have had the sigma 70-200 for 2 weeks now. It is NOT very sharp at full zoom. Might be inexperience since as I said the lense is new, but worth considering.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineTimdeGroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7088 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I love my 70-200, sharpest zoom I own, even better than the 28-70 2.8 IMO.
There are lots of Canon 2.8s available secondhand. You should be able to get a good copy for around 900 euros.

I'm sure the Sigma is a fine piece of glass too though, but I just like the Canon white Wink

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineGVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7082 times:

The Canon 70-200 2.8 is a great lens; sharpness and contrast at f/2.8 is very, very good and almost doesn't get any better by f/8. It comes very close to my 50mm 1.4, which probably says a thing or two... Note that the 70-200 2.8 is tested to have superior image quality over the 2.8 IS (which you probably won't notice when you're not shooting bricks from a tripod, but anyway...), so at 2/3rds of the price of the IS-version, it's definitely bang for the bucks.

I know some people who own the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX and I must say the image quality is very good as well, but it suffers a bit from vignetting (when used on a 1.6x crop body, this is no issue), perhaps something to think about...

Giovanni


User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7071 times:

Quoting TimdeGroot (Reply 3):
I'm sure the Sigma is a fine piece of glass too though, but I just like the Canon white



Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 2):
It is NOT very sharp at full zoom



Quoting Dullesguy (Reply 1):
just my .02

Your 2 cents are appriciated, thanks for that.. (My brother used the 70-200 F2.8 IS to for the A1 GP. many of his shots were uploaded without editting, very crisp and sharp. Only, the IS lens will be to much)

The dislikes of the canon (IMO) is his white color (attracks to much attention??), and the price. For the rest I did read that it was built strong enough with good materials, while the Sigma has some negative things (Like a plastic filter screw)
I also read that the Sigma was a little soft at 200mm wide open, while the canon performed a little better.

Just looks that the canon is worth the 300€ extra, because I will use it at 200mm a lot.

Peter, Stephen, Tim and Giovanni, thanks for the reply's

[Edited 2006-02-02 21:48:56]


have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7064 times:

I've heard very good things about both lenses, from what I've read they are equal in all respects. If you go with Sigma, you won't be dissappointed.

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 2):
It is NOT very sharp at full zoom



Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 4):
but it suffers a bit from vignetting



Quoting Morvious (Reply 5):
I also read that the Sigma was a little soft at 200mm wide open

So far I've only heard from Nikon users that they experienced some minor problems with the Sigma, are you ?

On my D30, 10D and now 20D I have never seen them and even with a 1.4 or 2.0 tc I do not hesitate to use it wide open and/or at full focal length.
Of course in this situation the image will be a bit softer then without but softness is not a problem as long as the focus is correct.

My own experience with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is very good.
On the other hand both Canon's are very good too and if I had to choose between them I would go for the non (is) version.
It's just a tiny bit sharper(*1 see explanation haha) and it can be used on a tripod.
*1 tested at 1/500s and faster at full focal length where (is) does not play a role. Of course when you shoot at 1/100s and slower the chances are pretty much sure the (is) version will deliver the sharper image not due to better optics but because you got a little helping hand from the electronics.

When I had the chance to compare the Sigma and the Canon side by side I noted that the Sigma had a brighter view finder something I like.
In some situations the Canon might lock faster not because it is faster but because the focus travel distance is divided in two area's by means of a switch(we are talking milliseconds though).
So if you have to focus from near to far the Sigma might be in a status it has to travel more distance on the other hand with the switch in the wrong position on the Canon it might not lock at all ? (did not test this so.....)
Both are build like a tank something I expect from a lens with the given price tag and so dearly miss on my latest "L" the 24-105.

Personally I don't mind to pay an extra 300 bucks as long as the lens is 300 bucks better.
In this case the answer is nope, they are very very close together(mounted on a Canon dslr that is, don't know about Nikon results).
300 bucks for a bit of white paint is to expensive for me. Big grin


Have fun,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7025 times:

I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I've used a Canon 70-200 f2.8 and I'm here to tell you...they are not the same. There is a definite difference. Whether or not you can afford the difference is up to you.

User currently offlineJay767 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7015 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 8):
I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I've used a Canon 70-200 f2.8 and I'm here to tell you

Do you own the old version or the new DG version,I've owned both(using the Dg now) and there is a big difference,I've also own the Canon 70-200 IS version but sold it for a 100-400L,The newer DG sigma is closer to the canon non IS 70-200 than the old sigma 70-200.



User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3508 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6995 times:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a superb lens. I've been using it for quite a while and I am very happy. Yes Canon is marginally better but I don't think the difference is worth few hundred $ extra. You may want to try some US seller on eBay.

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 6984 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 8):
I have a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I've used a Canon 70-200 f2.8 and I'm here to tell you...they are not the same.

Where did I say they were ?
I've tried to explain the differences the best I can, differences that came
from my own experience while doing a side by side comparison.

If you feel you have to make a statement as you did it would be nice to explain your self, like this it does not add anything to the conversation and won't help anybody to make a choice.

Take care,
Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6963 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
Where did I say they were ?

Where does it say I was replying to you? I was actually responding to the thread starter.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 11):
If you feel you have to make a statement as you did it would be nice to explain your self, like this it does not add anything to the conversation and won't help anybody to make a choice.

Nor does this rant of yours Willem, relax. It would be nice if made an extra $500 a day, but that ain't happeing either.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 8):
There is a definite difference.

there....that again, is my comment to Morvious.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6948 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 12):
Where does it say I was replying to you? I was actually responding to the thread starter.

Oepss I am sorry Jeff
I did not mean to be harsh but after a 16 hours working day and investing time to answer a question at 01:30am I found your answer just a little bit disappointing.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 12):
there....that again, is my comment to Morvious.

Still I am interested in the details of your findings Jeff.
Just to satisfy my hunger to understand everything from every different view point which as usual plays havoc with me.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6940 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 12):
there....that again, is my comment to Morvious.

I must remember myself of placing my real name on the bottom of a topic  Sad..

Anyway, thank you all from the reply's. I am going to the store tonight, and will fit both lenses on my camera (Eos 300D). Choice will be hard  Smile.

Have a good day all of you!

Stefan van Hierden.



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6906 times:

I went to the store this evening, and had the oppertunity to test both lenses out.
This was an easy descision, because of 2 things.

1: The Canon lens was a little heavier, but felt stronger and better build.

2: The autofocus of the Sigma lens wasn't as fast as the Canon.
With both lenses I changed my point of view in the store. The Canon was able to keep focussed, while the Sigma had to be corrected.

Just lucky I had the chance to use both lenses there.

Thanks you all for your information.

Stefan van Hierden



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineGAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6850 times:

Hi all,

I've been looking at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 of late for my D70. Although a lovely lens to use, I'm finding my current Nikon 70-300mm ED lens too soft above 200mm and I'm thus looking to upgrade. The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 would be a very nice replacement but is sadly out of my price range, hence turning my attention to the Sigma.

I've read a lot of reviews about the Sigma over the last few months, and although obviously not a Nikkor, I understand it to be a great lens for it's price tag. However, what I'm really interested in is seeing some example shots taken with this lens. Anyone able to post or link to a few shots? Or likewise, any further thoughts on the lens (and in particular, using it with a Nikon body) would be more than welcome - thank you!

Cheers,

Adam, UK


User currently offlineErwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 6832 times:

I have used the Sigma 70-200 EX for quite a while, with 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors. Great lens for a good price.

Browse my pictures from before december 2004 for a few examples.

Kind regards,
Erwin



My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6815 times:

Quoting Morvious (Reply 15):
1: The Canon lens was a little heavier, but felt stronger and better build.

http://www.sigma-benelux.nl/products/lens/product.php?pid=31
http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product...70200mm_f28L_USM/index.asp?specs=1
A little indeed, to be more specific 40 grams Big grin

Quoting Morvious (Reply 15):
The autofocus of the Sigma lens wasn't as fast as the Canon.

Explained in reply 7

Quoting Morvious (Reply 15):
The Canon was able to keep focussed, while the Sigma had to be corrected.

Just out of curiosity could you explain yourself ?

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 16):
Anyone able to post or link to a few shots?

The majority of my photos in the database are shot with exactly this lens.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6758 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 18):
Quoting Morvious (Reply 15):
The Canon was able to keep focussed, while the Sigma had to be corrected.

Just out of curiosity could you explain yourself ?

The Sigma lens I tried in the shop could't kept his focus if I was moving around with the point of view I was looking at.
(Simulating moving subjects)

I had to press the release button again half way down to focus again.

Maybe it was the lens I used, but that was my experience in that store.

And thanks for the help, don't get me wrong, the Sigma looked like a fine lens, but Canon felt a little better to buy!

Have a good day,

Stefan van Hierden



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineUa935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6732 times:

Quoting GAWZU (Reply 16):
However, what I'm really interested in is seeing some example shots taken with this lens. Anyone able to post or link to a few shots?

Here are a couple of my latests examples:-


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon F Gregory
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon F Gregory



Regards

Simon

[Edited 2006-02-07 18:13:30]


Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6709 times:

Quoting Morvious (Reply 19):
The Sigma lens I tried in the shop could't kept his focus if I was moving around with the point of view I was looking at.
(Simulating moving subjects)
I had to press the release button again half way down to focus again.

This is how it is supposed to work Morvious.
When in "one shot AF mode" you have to re-focus by pressing the shutter half way again if you move from one to another object.
In "servo AF mode" you have to keep the shutter pressed half way in order to follow a moving object.
There should not be a difference in this matter between the two.

Quoting Morvious (Reply 19):
And thanks for the help, don't get me wrong, the Sigma looked like a fine lens, but Canon felt a little better to buy!

You're welcome and I wish you success, the Canon is a fine piece of glass and won't disappoint you.

Quoting Ua935 (Reply 20):
Here are a couple of my latests examples

That's some fine shooting Simon, can't think of any lens that would have done a better job  Wink

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3353 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Simon: could you please tell me how much zoom you used? With my sigma I rarely manage to get the background really sharp. Normally I would say it has to do with depth of field, but at 5.6 that should not be an issue? Planes at a large distance end up unsharp as well. At the moment that is the only disappointing bit about my new lense.


Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineUa935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6704 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 21):
That's some fine shooting Simon, can't think of any lens that would have done a better job

Thanks very much Willem, I am very pleased with those two although I think the crisp winter alpine air has something to do with it.

Regards

Simon



Live every second like you mean it
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6695 times:

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 21):
There should not be a difference in this matter between the two

That was the problem.. There was a difference with both demo models.
And ps. You may call me Stefan  Wink

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 22):
With my sigma I rarely manage to get the background really sharp. Normally I would say it has to do with depth of field, but at 5.6 that should not be an issue?

You could try to shoot some photo's between 7.1 / 11 in good light conditions!
Playing around with the settings / modes will give you an idea.

Stefan van Hierden



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
25 Post contains images Petertenthije : Won't 11 affect my depth of field? Still trying to get a grip on the lense going from 5.6 to 2.8!
26 Post contains links and images Aviopic : Well it's not that easy to say. DOF is the result of "aperture" and "distance or focal length" whether you are using a Canon, Sigma or Okinoki 70-200
27 Post contains images Morvious : Shooting at 2.8 will soften (blur) your background sometimes even parts of the subject, but will give you a faster shutter speed. Shooting at 5.6 or
28 Post contains images Aviopic : Peter I am getting the feeling that your interpretation of DOF and aperture is the wrong way around. Large aperture(F2.8) = small dof, small aperture
29 Post contains links and images GAWZU : Hi all, Many thanks for all your thoughts, and links to photos. Erwin, Willem and Simon - some nice shots indeed! One of my biggest gripes with my cur
30 Post contains images Petertenthije : no, a canon 10D Hmmm, gonna try that next time weather will be OK-ish. Probably next year. Thanks for the advice!
31 Post contains images Aviopic : None, not even the tiniest bit in whatever situation. Which counts for the Canon just as well. Note that my comments are about the Canon version of t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 70-200 F2.8 +2x Vs 100-400 posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:42:06 by Donder10
Canon 70-200 F2.8 USM posted Mon Oct 4 2004 21:30:12 by Jat74l
Lens Ask :canon 70-200 Or Sigma 70-200 posted Wed May 5 2004 18:28:00 by Gust
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX Vs Canon 70-200 F/4L posted Fri Jul 22 2005 07:30:42 by DLKAPA
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX HSM & 1.4x TC Whats It Like? posted Fri Oct 8 2004 09:29:08 by Ua935
Canon: 100-400 LIS Vesus 70-200 F2.8 LIS + 2x posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:51:18 by Glennstewart
Canon Vs Sigma, The Big 70-200 Battle. posted Wed Aug 20 2003 13:41:25 by JoakimE
Nikon 80-200 F2.8D ED-N Vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX? posted Tue Apr 1 2003 00:02:45 by Richie777
For Sale: Canon 70-200 F4L - $519.99 - US Only posted Thu May 4 2006 19:53:45 by VasanthD
Canon 70-200 2.8L Is Versus NON Is posted Thu Jul 14 2005 03:40:56 by Mongorat