Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f2.8

OnLooker

Moving to the Digital SLR field. Going to buy the Canon D400. Have also decided to take the plunge & get a decent f2.8 lens when I head over in NY in December. Shoot sports with Bridge camera at the moment.

Have been looking at the Sigma & Canon Non-IS. $200 difference & edging towards the Canon.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/435163-USA/Sigma_569101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/91680-GREY/Canon_2569A004_70_200mm_f_2_8L_USM_Autofocus.html

Any opinions please??

rymus

if it's only a $200 difference, I wouldn't even consider getting the sigma. I bought a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS probably about a year ago and it's been the best purchase I've ever made. It's fast, sharp and it produces fantastic colour. So much so I'm going to sell off a couple of my Sigma lenses to buy the Canon L equivilent.

Valentia

rymus wrote:

So much so I'm going to sell off a couple of my Sigma lenses to buy the Canon L equivilent.

I thought the lens that you have is an L??

EDIT: Oops. I understand what you mean now.........

Yeah, go for the Canon if you can.

Borderfox

I have both and the build quality on the Canon is excellent but I have gotten some excellent pictures from both.

minikin

have the sigma (non macro version) it is excellent, the canon most likely shades it so if you've an extra €200 burning a hole in your pocket... why not.

Roen

Canon all the way if it's that small of a difference.

OnLooker

I have also been looking at the Canon 300mm f4 L IS USM.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129188-GREY/Canon_2530A004_Telephoto_EF_300mm_f_4_0L.html

Any opinions?? Same price as the 70-200mm f2.8. The 300mm would give me a greater reach than the 70-200mm or did you recommend getting a 1.4x for the 70-200mm?

bovril

The canon 300mm a lot quicker than the 70-200 + 1.4x (it might possibly be sharper???) but it all depends on the light for the sports you intent to shoot and the distance from the players to you .

The f4 on the 300mm might not be wide enough if the light is bad, also when the 1.4x is put on the 70-200 the f2.8 will be f4 anyways.

soccerc

bovril wrote:

The f4 on the 300mm might not be wide enough if the light is bad, also when the 1.4x is put on the 70-200 the f2.8 will be f4 anyways.

As bovril points out an F4 300mm is not great in poor light. Go for a 2.8 300mm

OnLooker

Shoot Soccer, Gaelic Football & Hurling. Can freely move around the field so not pinned down to a certain designated area. 90% of shots are taken during the day time.

soccerc

OnLooker wrote:

Shoot Soccer, Gaelic Football & Hurling. Can freely move around the field so not pinned down to a certain designated area. 90% of shots are taken during the day time.

Come November to March daytime is short and the quality of light generally poor, particularly in the afternoon.

From experience I can safely say an f4 300mm will not do the job under those conditions.

OnLooker

I am edging towards the 2.8 for deffo.

Just want to make the right decision as its my first investment in a decent peice of equipment.

Borderfox

Sigma 120-300 f2.8? just an option, its a 300mm f2.8 but also zoom.

Borderfox

I know its not as good as the Canon but its not far off and its half the price.

OnLooker

The missus would beat the head off me if I bought the Sigma. :eek:

She would then think she could spend that much on clothes & I would have no feet left from walking around that long.

Spending just over $2k when I head over to NY.

Borderfox

Buy the Sigma and use it for work!! Onlooker+Sigma= profit !!

Fajitas!

Go for the L