canon or sigma 70-200mm

kimo

kimo

Messages
377
Edit My Images
No
which one would you buy canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm or sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex dg hsm
I can get the sigma for £649 which is over half the price of the canon lens, but is there half the difference in them?:help:
 
I've just purchased a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 mm USM (non-IS)
Bought it for £660 delievered, so if you shop around you can definately get a bargain. However you are looking for an IS version which will be much more costly. Does your line of work really need the IS?

I would say the Canon is much better for IQ and faster focussing, maybe sharpness too.
The Sigma however is able to focus at a much closer distance.
 
Ive got both the Canon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I've shot back to back with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.

My recommendation is to go and try handling them both. The Canon f2.8 is a beast and very like the 100-400 to handle. The Sigma is much lighter and easier to steady and much less tiring on a long shoot.

So it depends what you want to use it for as to which might be best for you. The IQ on the Sigma is every bit as good as the Canon and I can hand hold it a lot lower than the Canon due to the weight.

3214600543_951878c1db.jpg


3160040292_59a8f3c2d3.jpg


Both taken with the Sigma.
 
define half the quality..

the sigma doesnt have IS, but thats no real biggy. ive got the 1st gen "macro" version and its fast and tack sharp (see my sunseeker thread in motorsports).
 
I find I'd NEED the IS with the Canon it's such a big heavy bugger!

That's why I say it depends what you are using it for. If it's going to be tripod mounted, you'd switch off the IS anyway so why pay for it, get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 instead. If you are going to be hand holding, again it depends. hand holding in one spot for motorsport is probably a lot different to shooting a wedding with it slung round your neck all day.

Horses for courses.
 
Yes I see your point about the IS
If you buy the IS it's much heavier so you are going to need it on a tripod, which at that point you then have to turn the IS off anyway, if I was shooting weddings I would probably opt for the Sigma out of lightness. But i'm the sort of person that if i'm not using the lens it's in the bag or placed somewhere.
 
J4MIE P
I've just purchased a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 mm USM (non-IS)
Bought it for £660 delievered, so if you shop around you can definately get a bargain. However you are looking for an IS version which will be much more costly. Does your line of work really need the IS?

I would say the Canon is much better for IQ and faster focussing, maybe sharpness too.
The Sigma however is able to focus at a much closer distance.
Click to expand...

I was looking at using this lens at the WHF meet. I only use a camera as a hobbie the reason for the 'IS' was because i don' have the steadyest hands.

LEAKY5
Not sure if they have any left, Jessops are offering the Sigma (MK1 I assume) for £273 Canon fit. It was under the London and Birmingham branches and will apparently do mail order.
Click to expand...

thanks for that but would be looking for the mark 2 if i went for the sigma

ALI B
Ive got both the Canon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and I've shot back to back with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.

My recommendation is to go and try handling them both. The Canon f2.8 is a beast and very like the 100-400 to handle. The Sigma is much lighter and easier to steady and much less tiring on a long shoot.

So it depends what you want to use it for as to which might be best for you. The IQ on the Sigma is every bit as good as the Canon and I can hand hold it a lot lower than the Canon due to the weight.
Click to expand...

great shots
From what you are saying I might be better off with the sigma becacuse of the weight or go for the canon with no 'IS'. Am i right in thinking the sigma wouldn't have some type of 'IS'? I don't plan on doing weddings so it wouldn't be around my neck all day, if i did use it for motorsport then I would use a monopod anyway.

thanks for the replys
 
I've used both the Sigma and Canon on my 350D, and ended up buying the Sigma. Whilst I love the Canon's image quality and faster focusing I just couldn't comprehend spending £1200 on the lens, even more so when I was offered a mint version of the Sigma for £300!

I love the Sigma, it's produced some fine photographs, and is IMO great value for money :)

n502157922_725624_4517.jpg


n502157922_629731_6626.jpg


n502157922_1008187_3068.jpg


Despite it being quite bulky it's not an overly heavy lens to handle. I've stood in a field for 9 hours taking photos non stop and although I've been tired at the end of the day, that was due to the standing around rather than the weight of the lens.
 
I had the Sigma EX Macro version and I now have the Canon 2.8 IS. The Sigma gave me nice pictures, but since I have changed I have seen a difference in the quality. The Canon is quieter and smoother and focuses faster, I handhold it most of the time and only use it on a monopod if I am out all day - although it is heavier than the Sigma it balances well with both the 40D (gripped) and the 1D 2N
Personally I would go with the Canon, but the Sigma will still give good pictures, just depends on if you can justify the extra for the Canon for whatever you want it for.
 
TWIZZEL
I've used both the Sigma and Canon on my 350D, and ended up buying the Sigma. Whilst I love the Canon's image quality and faster focusing I just couldn't comprehend spending £1200 on the lens, even more so when I was offered a mint version of the Sigma for £300!

I love the Sigma, it's produced some fine photographs, and is IMO great value for money
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I was looking at ths sigma was costs the canon is now at least £1400.


SUSIE

I had the Sigma EX Macro version and I now have the Canon 2.8 IS. The Sigma gave me nice pictures, but since I have changed I have seen a difference in the quality. The Canon is quieter and smoother and focuses faster, I handhold it most of the time and only use it on a monopod if I am out all day - although it is heavier than the Sigma it balances well with both the 40D (gripped) and the 1D 2N
Personally I would go with the Canon, but the Sigma will still give good pictures, just depends on if you can justify the extra for the Canon for whatever you want it for.
Click to expand...

why did you change?
I wouldn't be using it everyday as I don't get to use my camera all the time infact the last time was 2 weeks ago when I went to Las Vegas. One of the reasons I thought of getting one or the other was because I am going on the WHF meet and thought it would be a good choice to get some good shots (fingers crossed).


It seems that its a fifty fifty choice from the replys
 
neil_g said:
to clear up, the sigma is neither noisey or slow focusing. in fact i find its practically silent and can focus quick enough to catch motorsports.
Click to expand...
I was not saying thai it is noisy or slow focusing, but I was able to hear a slight noise when it was focusing, the Canon is faster and quieter than the one I used though.

kimo said:
TWIZZEL
Why did you change?
I wouldn't be using it everyday as I don't get to use my camera all the time infact the last time was 2 weeks ago when I went to Las Vegas. One of the reasons I thought of getting one or the other was because I am going on the WHF meet and thought it would be a good choice to get some good shots (fingers crossed).


It seems that its a fifty fifty choice from the replys
Click to expand...
I had the chance to get the Canon one, and decided to go for it while I could. Other than when I am shoting birdies I use it for pretty much all my
shots so I sold a few lenses and bought a secondhand one while I could. If it was not my main lens and I had not had that chance I would still have been happy with the images the Sigma produced and stayed with it.
 
I think the thing to way up is whether the Canon is worth the extra £800 or so, or whether you'd be fine with the Sigma. I bought my Sigma from a pro who was only selling because he had the Canon and wanted a lens to shoot indoor showjumping with, he was rather gutted to be selling it!

Having used both lenses, yes the Canon is better, but unless you're a pro I'd say that the extra £800 is probably not worth it... the Sigma is a fab lens (and quick enough to shoot horses as you can see above, I have shot freestyle motocross with it and it coped well too).
 
i have had both... i got the sigma when it first came out so it was the original version (non macro) and enjoyed using it for many years nothing wrong with it at all pin sharp and fast, but i ended up selling it along with both sigma tc's and a few other bit's and treated myself to the f2.8 is no real reason for the upgrade other than i could afford it and with the way lens price's are going if i didnt make the jump i would not have been able to afford one :shake: i have bought a canon 1.4xtc to go with it aswell..
now i just need to find more time to use it and improve my photography..
 
Canon 70-200 (NON IS) - 1310g - £950
Sigma 70-200 - 1345g - £607

(UK prices from Camerapricebuster)

I looked at reviews, listened to what real users had to say then.....


Bought the Sigma 70-200 & the 24-70 :D

So far I've never had a reason to regret the descision.
 
I got the Canon 70-200mm L non IS version some years ago, brand new. Stunning lens, very sharp and quick and I'm thrilled with it. May be worth a look if you can find one. (no I'm not selling mine;) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top