Morvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 708 posts, RR: 1 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7868 times:
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!
Dullesguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7861 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
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 7822 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...
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
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.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7765 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.
Jay767 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 223 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7755 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.
Danny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3524 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7735 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.
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.
GAWZU From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 235 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7590 times:
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!
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 7449 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
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Petertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7444 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.