1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hmm 70-200 f4 L or Sigma 70-200 2.8

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by mrk, 22 May 2006.

  1. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    Just a quick one really, can someone who has both or someone who has one of either post their views? hates? likes? etc.

    The sigma is just over £100 more expensive and has 2.8 but whether the 2.8 is sharp from 70-200 is another matter whereas I know the L is sharp at f4 at all zooms but obviously slower because ...well only f4 :/

    Will be ordering one or the other along with a 17-40L (with a uv to keep the dust maggots out!!) this month sometime ¬_¬

    Taa!
     
  2. Joe T

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Apr 2003

    Posts: 11,700

    Location: Northampton

    I thought you used Nikon these days :confused:
     
  3. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    I do :p I use both!
     
  4. Joe T

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Apr 2003

    Posts: 11,700

    Location: Northampton

    Ok :p get the sigma in nikon fit :p
     
  5. SDK^

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 19,124

    I imagine that is going to be hard to learn both systems properly; to be able to pick up either camera and instantly setup it up for a quick snap.


    Go for the Sigma if need F2.8 and the Canon if you prefer build quality go for the Canon :)
     
  6. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    That was what I was saying to myself but I cannot find any decent samples online of the sigma at 2.8 from both 70mm and 200mm because if it's not as sharp at below f4 then it makes the £100 price boost not as meaningful - I'd also have to get a new lens cap (a centre pinch one since the sigma one falls off with a small tap apparently!) too.

    Btw, using both systems isn't too difficult :p I thought it would be very hard to get used to one or the other after using Canon for so long but they are both just as logical as the other where one is better the other is worse etc, I feel more control with the "N" though but as you may remember I always wanted to go full frame one day and only canon have that so I'm trying to get the glass sorted out then cheap body then full frame so the cheap body can be set as backup if everything works out how I'm planning.. :o
     
  7. JonnyGLC

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Oct 2004

    Posts: 3,125

    Location: Manchester

    Save up a bit more and get the Canon f/2.8 L non-is :D

    I've got the F/4 L at the moment and as good a lens it is, i sometimes can't help but hate myself for not saving that bit longer and getting the F/2.8 version. Before people tell me to get the Sigma, the canon build quality > Sigma and i'd prefer to stay with Canon :D
     
  8. Johnny|lucidcomposure

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 5 Nov 2004

    Posts: 9,303

    I am in a pickle over the 70 - 200 also. Im just gonna save towards the 2.8 IS L (CANON of course!) Trator :p
     
  9. IceAx

    Soldato

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 5,821

    Location: Warrington

    I love my 70-200 wouldnt swap it for anything
    for the same money.

    Andy
     
  10. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast


    f4? or 2.8? :)
     
  11. Sleepyd

    Hitman

    Joined: 30 Sep 2005

    Posts: 696

    Bear in mind 2.8 is useful for use with an extender, so, if you're going down that road then get the 2.8 also for low light. For me it's too expensive for 1 stop more and I dont shoot in low light generally. The F4 is very portable and easy to hand-hold therefore I went for it.
     
  12. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    I have no trouble shooting at smaller than f4 in low light (shot the abba lookalikes concert thing in portsmouth at night with sigma 18-200 at f5+ 1/50 and got many keepers, the 2.8 would give *** upper hand though as you could use lower iso instead of 800/1600...think its gonna be the f4 though, everything so far suggests f4 :)
     
  13. nolimit

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 20 Aug 2003

    Posts: 2,446

    Location: London

    save up and buy the Nikon 70-200. :D
     
  14. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    I already have access to the 80-200 :p
     
  15. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: 31 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,876

    Location: Inverness

    I've had the Canon F4 but now use the Sigma F2.8. The sigma is sharper than the canon F4 variant and is sharper than the Canon 70-200 F2.8 throughout most of the focal range at any given aperture including F2.8

    The pros of the Sigma.
    - according to the charts it's sharper than the canon variant through the range at all apertures until you hit about 200mm, then the canon takes over.
    - comes with tripod collar and hood
    - a lot cheaper than the canon F2.8 version
    - it's black, not so conspicuous.
    - it's smaller and lighter than the canon F2.8

    The Cons
    - the zoom ring works in the opposite direction to my other lenses. Not a huge issue but can catch you out occasionally.
    - the finish is like a matt paint. Mine got splashed at a motocross event a few weeks ago and there are still some water marks I can't get off the barrel. Doesn't affect performance but annoying.
    - heavier than the F4
    - more expensive than the F4
    - potentially there may be compatability issues with new bodies in the future due to Sigma reverse engineering the lens.
    - no weather proofing.

    Check the reviews here on the F4 and the sigma
    http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
     
    Last edited: 23 May 2006
  16. TheBigCheese

    Mobster

    Joined: 6 Sep 2005

    Posts: 3,799

    A friend of mine bought the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 a while ago, he shoots rock gigs etc so needed something fast that would get him close to the stage.

    He took it back though as the focusing is abysmal in low light, far too slow for what he needed.

    I had a play with it as well and personally I would stay with the Canon (I bought one), if you are using a 20D or 5D you can just turn the ISO up to 400 without really affecting picture quality and you have a lens that's just as fast but a lot lighter.
     
  17. IceAx

    Soldato

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 5,821

    Location: Warrington

    F4 sorry :)

    Andy
     
  18. morgan

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 12 Jul 2004

    Posts: 1,587

    Do you have the Canon 70-200 F2.8 or are you basing this on someone elses opinion? :confused:
     
  19. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: 31 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,876

    Location: Inverness

    Look at the reviews on the link I gave. Here's the conclusion after the resolution tests were done

    Edit: Actually looking at the charts again F2.8 at 135mm looks like the canon is sharper, ignore my earlier comment about any focal length

     
    Last edited: 23 May 2006
  20. mrk

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 87,108

    Location: South Coast

    if it's substantially worse at 200mm wither wider AV though wouldn't that be a problem? They say at medium aperture settings and the usual medium is 5.6~ whereas the f4L is sharp at f4 at all lengths.

    Hmm..

    Also the 70-200 f4 comes with a hood too :p

    I should be using it on a 30D providing they are in stockfrom where I'm buying it all so high iso usage even up to 3200 isn't an issue in the slightest I guess.

    ANyone got any 100% crops of real world scenarios on the sigma? !