Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

canon 2.8 or sigma 2.8 70-200

  • 27-05-2009 11:08pm
    #1
    hoganpoly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 604 ✭✭✭


    debating getting either one of the above for mainly lineside football/gaa matches ,currently have sigma 70-300 4-5.6 apo.but find it not great if anyway dull ,no real budget in mind but does the canon do so much better than the sigma for twice the price


Comments

  • #2
    pete4130
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭pete4130


    Had the Sigma version for Nikon a little over year ago, sold it within a month. Using the Nikno 80-200 now that I got for half the price and its far better. I say if you can afford it, go for the Canon.


  • #3
    Saint_Mel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,598 ✭✭✭Saint_Mel


    hoganpoly wrote: »
    debating getting either one of the above for mainly lineside football/gaa matches ,currently have sigma 70-300 4-5.6 apo.but find it not great if anyway dull ,no real budget in mind but does the canon do so much better than the sigma for twice the price

    Only snapping at games since the start of this season but I started with a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 but after 2 games upgraded to a Sigma 2.8 70-200. I find the Sigma grand, but then again I havn't used the Canon version so I've nothing really to compare with. But I'm happy enough (and so is my pocket) with my lot at the moment.


  • #4
    LeoB
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,256 ✭✭✭LeoB


    I got the sigma and think it is a super lens. The f2.8 is so much better than the 70-300. My friend has the Nikon version and thinks it is also very good. We both take photos of G.A.A matchs and get good results. I Could'nt afford the Canon.


  • #5
    hoganpoly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 604 ✭✭✭hoganpoly


    thanks for the replies might hire a canon 2.8 from conns for a day and see from results,anywhere else that hires out lenses,thx


  • #6
    DotOrg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭DotOrg


    i've used both and the only real difference is the autofocus on the sigma is slower. apart from that, no real world difference


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Ricky91t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,281 ✭✭✭Ricky91t


    OP you might want to sub in the price of a 1.4TC too,As i find 200 can be abit too short sometimes..


  • #8
    Borderfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,263 ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Sigma if you are hobbiest and Canon if you are more serious, I only say this from the point of view of build quality. Canon is far better built than the Sigma and IQ on the canon is slightly better and if you get the IS it is weatherproofed with a pro body. Sigma is a little warmer is colour too.

    I used the Sigma quite a bit and found it excellent.


Advertisement