is there anybody here using Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens ?

Ratchet

i did read some reviews but have some question in regards to this lens.

DotOrg

you'll get a lot more lens owners at the eos forum at photo.net

i have the f2.8L IS version, beautiful lens but it's the weight of a baby elephant

rymus

African or Indian?

Ratchet

DotOrg wrote:

you'll get a lot more lens owners at the eos forum at photo.net

i have the f2.8L IS version, beautiful lens but it's the weight of a baby elephant

will love to get one of these f2.8 but they are pricey. was thinking about getting f4.0 instead

rymus

L glass is overpriced anyway... (or so I've heard, my pockets arent deep enough to find out)

nothin' wrong with sigma EX lenses, despite what the elite Canonite groupies might say...

DotOrg

nothin' wrong with sigma EX lenses

very few sigma lenses are as good in all respects as most Canon L glass. Whether it's worth it or not depends on how picky you are about the little technical things in a picture and how much money you make out of your pictures to justify the extra costs.

rymus

well no.. thats pretty much a given. I wouldnt expect say the Sigma 24-70 @ around €350 to come close to the Canon 24-70L @ €1000+ but theyre a good option for the users that would consider themselves lucky to sell a print (i.e. me) and really cant justify spending L class money just yet. At least as yet my amateur eye can't tell the difference between the two.

Valentia

I use the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and am very pleased with it. Of course a Canon IS L would be nice (especially the IS bit as I can't hold the lens as steady as I used to) but the price differential with the quality is not justifiable unless you have plenty of spare cash. This is even more so if you are using digital and not transparencies. The Sigma is great lens and you wont be disappointed.

Ratchet

yeah sigma is an option but F4 70-200 L glass would be nearly the same price

Valentia

but F4 70-200 L glass would be nearly the same price

Cheaper in fact if you bought it second hand from a place like B & H in New York.

rymus

$839 for the sigma versus $1139 for the canon. Or an extra $500 or so for the IS version.

depends on how long your arms are and how deep your pockets go.

Valentia

Yes, but were talking F2.8 to F4 here. are we? In my very humble opinion the L glass is hype when it comes to digital. Digital has a long way to go to come near trannies. I say that even though I am gone 100% digital.

Ratchet

Valentia wrote:

Yes, but were talking F2.8 to F4 here. are we? In my very humble opinion the L glass is hype when it comes to digital. Digital has a long way to go to come near trannies. I say that even though I am gone 100% digital.

r u using this sigma lens with digital canon? how is the focus speed and bokeh when using sigma?


just found this review too

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html

Valentia

Yes, with the Canon 10D. The autofocus is very fast and smooth. The bokeh is nice, Ithink, though that is often a matter of taste. There are some examples of photographs that I took with the lens here, here and here. The lens is very well made and feels good to use though because it is F2.8 it is probably a good bit heavier than the Canon F4 version.

Have a look on the forums at dpreview and go to the "Canon SLR Lens Talk" forum you will get a lot of discussion on the merits and otherwise of the Canon and Sigma zooms.