EMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1163 posts, RR: 2 Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2694 times:
I finally have enough money to get a new lens. I will buy second hand but I am torn between getting a Canon 70-200mm f4 L or a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM. They both come out about the same second hand. Is the Canon better in quality/sharpness etc? If so is it enough to buy one and only get f4 not f2.8?
I am off to see a friend in Zurich in January and want to shoot some planes at ZRH and some mountain railways so good low light performance would seem like a good idea. I will most likely also use it at Le Mans 24hr race and want to see if I can get some good night pics. Google "le mans night" too see what I mean.
I will be using it on a Canon 400D body.
Any help much appreciated.
Andy S
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2649 times:
Both are good performers and both come for about the same price.
I suspect second hand price won't be much different either.
In terms built quality and sharpness you won't find much difference either although like I said in the other thread get your self a Sigma 70-200 without "macro" but as you are looking for a second hand that will probably the case anyway.
In low light the Sigma being 2.8 will have an advantage over the F4 Canon on the other hand the Sigma is probably twice as heavy.
Another thing to consider is whether or not you intend to use a teleconverter at some stage.
The Canon F4 will only take the 1.4 while keeping AF, the Sigma will take a 1.4 and/or a 2.0 while keeping AF.
Good luck with either one of them.
Cheers.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
I don't think I can spend that much. I have money but I would put my limit at £400 or there abouts. The f4 IS is £650ish second hand I think. I have other things like holidays, Christmas etc to pay for as well.
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
EMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2623 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 1): on the other hand the Sigma is probably twice as heavy.
How heavy is the Sigma compared to the Canon 100-400? I will most likely use the 70-200 as part of my travel photography kit as well as for aviation so weight will pay some role.
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
UA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2622 times:
70-200 F2.8 weighs 1345g.
100-400 weighs 1380g.
The 70-200 2.8 always forms part of my travel kit. In alot of situations the 2.8 is invaluable and makes such a difference over an F4. Take the Terracotta Warriors in Xi'an for example, dimly lit building, 2.8 shone through and allowed me to use a lower ISO.
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2778 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2620 times:
Quoting EMA747 (Reply 3): The f4 IS is £650ish second hand I think.
I bought it on Ebay for GBP500, and although it was officially 2nd hand I actually strongly suspect it was new. Not sure if you'll find them 2nd hand often, as I doubt people will want to get rid of them!
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2614 times:
Quoting EMA747 (Reply 4): How heavy is the Sigma compared to the Canon 100-400?
The Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG(macro) HSM2 weighs 1390g.
Not sure what the weight of the previous 2 versions(EX APO HSM and EX DG HSM) was, won't be very much different though.
The Canon 70-200/4.0 L USM weighs 705g so my estimate was pretty accurate.
All in all I guess it comes down to Weight(in kg) or Light(in F), what is most important for you.
The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
EMA747 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1163 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2598 times:
I think I would rather be saying "that lens is heavy, but what a shot I got" rather than "that lens was really light but I wish I'd had f2.8 in this light."
Also I really like dramatic shots in snow, rain etc and want to get some of my own.
I guess if the quality of the Sigma is pretty much the same as the Canon I will go with the Sigma.
If anyone has any pics taken with the Sigma can you please send me a link or something?
Andy S
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 47 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Quoting EMA747 (Reply 8): I think I would rather be saying "that lens is heavy, but what a shot I got" rather than "that lens was really light but I wish I'd had f2.8 in this light."
For sure having a F2.8 will be a plus during the 24 hour.
Quoting EMA747 (Reply 8): If anyone has any pics taken with the Sigma can you please send me a link or something?
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 1163 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2778 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
