Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2920 times:
What would you get, a used Sigma 70-200/2.8 or a new Canon 70-200/4. The sigma is a little cheaper, but is it as sharp or sharper than the Canon?
I'm not bothered by the extra stop on the Sigma, optical quality is more important.
Also, has anyone here got shots taken with the 70-200/4 and a 1.4x or 2x extender? Does it work fine with the convertors? Are there any qality converters available for the Sigma?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2862 times:
The Canon 70-200 is a very, very sharp lens even wide open - matches or exceeds many primes in sheer optical quality - no problem with Canon convertors, but these are pretty pricey ... I wouldn't vouch for using it with 3rd party convertors.
NonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2843 times:
If your using Canon equipment, I'd stick with Canon. However, I've shot with Sigma and it's the only brand other than Canon I trust. I guess you have to figure out what your priority is. If it's money, go with the Sigma. If it's quality, go with the Canon.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
The Sigma one is an excellent alternative. Many professionals use it because it brings the same optical quality as the Nikon or Canon f/2.8 70-200 and 80-200 lenses at a lower price.
Brian's just a bit snobbish Staffan
I don't have the 70-200 Sigma, but it's high on my to-get list. I'll be getting it instead of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S (which is said to be the very best lens in its class on the market) and I don't expect it to be enough worse to see the results unless on huge (A-3 sized and larger) enlargements.
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9444 posts, RR: 72 Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2787 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Now now Joe. I own both the Sigma 70-200 APO HSM EX f/2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 AFS f/2.8. The Sigma has a slightly "cooler" color cast then the Nikon, and I think the Nikon AFS is slightly faster in low-light conditions, but they are pretty darn close.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2725 times:
You WILL loose AF with the 2x but not the 1.4x - however, AF is slower with a convertor attached - not bad, just slower than without. Canon actually documents this as a "feature" to "ensure precise focusing" or something similar.
How are Tamron lenses compared to Sigma in quality?
I think with all 3rd party lenses, there are stars and dogs. From my own experience I have owned a Sigma 400mm APO, Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 and Tamron 90mm macro. All were superb lenses. I have also owned lenses from these companies that were absolute crap - each lens needs to be assessed on its own merits.
KAL_LM From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
I can't speak for the Sigma, but my zoom is a Tamron 80mm-210mm, and am very pleased with the results (if only my scanning skills and scanner were up to par though...). I've used it in a variety of situations, not just aviation adn have not been disappointed...yet.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2664 times:
Tom, I think you'll find that no large part of those poor scans are caused by your Tamron giving poor resolution of small details.
On a 10x15cm print you don't notice, but if you blow it up to 20x30 or larger the flaws become obvious.
As to price differences, OEM lenses are always more expensive even when they're not really better. You pay big bucks to have the word "Canon" or "Nikon" plastered on the lenscap...
A Nikkor or Canon might be 1% better at 100% higher cost. Unless you're someone for whom that 1% makes the difference in getting a shot that you can sell for more than the price difference there's no reason to get the Nikon or Canon except snobbery
Timdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 67 Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2648 times:
"A Nikkor or Canon might be 1% better at 100% higher cost. Unless you're someone for whom that 1% makes the difference in getting a shot that you can sell for more than the price difference there's no reason to get the Nikon or Canon except snobbery"
Sure we all buy those lenses purely to be snobs, jeezz..... , don't say that just because you don't have one.
Maybe the Sigma 70-200 is comparable to similar Canon and Nikon products but most lenses have a significant quality advantage over the Sigma/Tokina/Tamron lenses.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
Tim, it's of course always a matter of the individual item.
But even you have to admit that to most people the tiny difference in quality between the average Sigma EX and its Canon or Nikon equivalent isn't worth the doubling of the pricetag.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
What do you mean by equivalent? If you are comparing 3rd party "pro" ranges to "standard" Canon & Nikon, yes I agree, but also the price difference is not so great these days. If you are comparing to the top line C & N, I think there are a significant number of differences - can't speak for Nikon in detail, but Canon "L" series will show:
1 - optical superiority - visibly sharper and better contrast, in part due to superior coatings.
2 - build - tougher construction and better whether proofing
3 - performance - 3rd party lens use a copy of the mount and lens/camera interface, they do not work form the Canon specs. This usually means Canon lenses tend to work better on Canon bodies, and in particular the AF is faster and more reliable. In fact there are situations where older 3rd party lenses will not work fully on newer Canon bodies.
Ultimately you pays your money and takes your choice. There is a difference, and significantly more than 1%. Whether or not that difference is worthwhile is up to the individual. Prior to switching to EOS, I used a mix of 3rd party and Canon lenses. I had good 3rd parties and bad - each had their own quirks. When I changed to EOS, I decided to stick Canon - each lens works as well as the other, provides consistent results and I don't have to worry about each lenses quirks ... whether or not they are better lenses, ease of use and standardisation makes for better photography.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
Actually Sigma is not a "Third Party" manufacturer. They have their own line of cameras. It would be interesting if Nikon and Canon would make mounts for other makes of cameras as well. That would raise the bar across the board.
Joe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2592 times:
If you shoot digital then perhaps the final output will not show as much as slides- i have seen the top of the line sigma F2.8 and when you look at an action slide at full 210mm (sigma 70-210 F2.8) and compare to a Canon L 70-200 F2.8 at full 200 you begin to see the light (im talking with a powerful slide loupe)- the difference is night and day- i've seen it with my own eyes and I believe that I have enough knowledge and experience to make a valued judgement. They dont charge double the money for OEM because of a 1% increase in performance, just like you dont pay double or triple for a mercedes over a ford for no reason- there IS a reason.
Joe A.T. TEAM
25 Staffan: Thanks for the replies! I feel pretty confident that the Canon is a good buy. I've hardly heard anything negative about it, and I have yet to see some
26 Ckw: Staffan - too bad you didn't ask a year ago ... you could have had mine when I upgraded to the 2.8 IS! - mind you, quite a few people did this, so the
27 Andyhunt: Joe, The concept is sometimes called "perceived value pricing". Common marketing term. It may or may not be the case with Sigma or Canon, but believe
28 Joe pries: Andy, I dont doubt it for a minute, you're right. Just like generic drugs and brand name, they sometimes are the same exact thing. I can only speak pe
29 Clickhappy: the other thing to consider is warranty and resale value. Also, a company like Sigma, while providing some top-notch glass, doesn't have the complete
30 Jwenting: Andrew is quite right that Sigma IS an OEM... They have a nice line of SLRs and now a revolutionary DSLR as well. The SD9 can and does compete with th
31 Clickhappy: I was thinking more on the lines of 500, 600 and 800. And believe me, their 500 f/4.5 doesn't compare to the Nikon AFS II f/4, until you factor in the
32 Jwenting: They do have an 800mm too Their 600 is a mirrorlens so I don't count that as those are too specialist. I haven't used either the Sigma or Nikkor 500mm
33 Staffan: Thanks for the replies (and for not killing eachother)! A year ago, my minolta was still working pretty well, so I wasn't really on the market for a n
34 Jwenting: Staffan, found you a review from someone who'se used both the Sigma AND the Canon for considerable time next to each other: http://www.naturephotograp
35 Staffan: Thanks The second hand sigma I was looking at was no good... That article is about the 2.8 versions of both, and the 4 is cheaper than both of them, s