canon 70-200 vs sigma 70-200

john1963

hi folks, was looking to buy a 70-200 2.8 lens and cant choose between these two. obviously the sigma is cheaper and having used sigma lenses before i rate them highly. does anyone have any opinions. thanks

AnimalRights

Save your money up for the Canon, better IQ.
Although the Sigma from my brief reading is pretty decent too.

Paulw

What aperture is the Sigma?

What do you want to use the lens for?

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 is a brilliant lens, great AF, very sharp, clear, well worth investing in.

Anouilh

http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma70-200mm/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/theportraitgroup/discuss/72157608807734648/

I chose a Sigma zoom in May, based on price.

It is not as sharp as a Canon, but with a tripod, is a very good lens.

john1963

the sigma is a 2.8 too.

rymus

Save the extra for the Canon. By many accounts, when Sigma shoehorned in a macro function to the 70-200 2.8, it didn't take very well. For that reason, the non macro older 2.8 seems to be a better lens. But of course you can't get that anymore.

Get the canon. And if you're feeling really flush, go for the IS version. I love mine dearly.

kensutz

rymus wrote: »

Save the extra for the Canon. By many accounts, when Sigma shoehorned in a macro function to the 70-200 2.8, it didn't take very well. For that reason, the non macro older 2.8 seems to be a better lens. But of course you can't get that anymore.

Get the canon. And if you're feeling really flush, go for the IS version. I love mine dearly.

You can if someone's selling one *cough cough*

rymus

well yes of course.. but anyone I know that has the older non macro version is keeping it

challengemaster

kensutz wrote: »

You can if someone's selling one *cough cough*

Selling it to get another 1DmkII? :pac:

Anouilh

Does it have to be a 70-200?

I have a Sigma 70-300 apo macro and I really love it.

The "macro" function is very useful.
It does not get right into the stamens of flowers like a true macro, but it's close.

http://anouilh.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/green-light-in-garden-ferns-unfold/



http://flickr.com/photos/anouilh/2847669587/

The lens cost under 200 Euro in Conn's Cameras and came with a nice cushioned protective bag and a lens hood.

kensutz

challengemaster wrote: »

Selling it to get another 1DmkII? :pac:

Nope don't need to sell to get other equipment, already have the Canon equivalent. Stalker

Arciphel

I have one of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM macro lenses and shoot it on a Nikon D300 & D700. It's a good lens for the money (I paid €600 for mine new on e-bay) but the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR is a better lens - but of course costs 2 1/2 times more. I'd imagine the difference is the same between the sigma and the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS. if you can afford to wait a few months and get the canon i think you will probably be happier in the long run, and also don't forget when it comes to selling you will get make for a canon/nikon lens than a sigma one.

DotOrg

i've used both and own the canon. very little image quality difference. the main thing i found between actually using them is the slower autofucus of the sigma lens

sineadw

If its anything like the difference between the Sigma 24-70ex 2.8 and the Canon 24-70L 2.8 then I'd definitely say hold out for the canon! Far superior lens. Much sharper, faster AF. Just miles better..

RichyX

Have you considered the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8?
Even cheaper than the Sigma and reputedly optically better.

Only significant downside from what I've read is the slower autofocus.

Ballyman

I have the new Sigma version. Pic below was taken with it and you can see that it's pretty sharp and the colours and contrast are excellent. I'd highly recommend it, especially as it is less than half the price of the canon version and you'd be hard pushed to be able to tell the difference between the shot below and one taken using the canon version.

Is the slightly faster AF worth double the price? Thats up to you.

It was taken at f/2.8, 1/1250, 144mm, 640 ISO.