Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 vs Canon 70-200mm f4 L

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 2:48:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi guys,

I'm thinking about purchasing a lens to replace my Sigma 18-200mm
f35.-5.6 DC, which although a pretty capable lens, I've found it's very
soft at the long end. I'd like to replace it with something that gives
me sharper images.

I've narrowed it down to a choice of two lenses, the Sigma 70-200mm
f/2.8 EX DG or the Canon 70-200mm f4 L lens.

According to www.WarehouseExpress.com the Canon 70-200mm costs £487.00
and the Sigma lens costs £649.99. However, Canon don't include the
tripod collar with the L lens and this costs an extra £89.00, while the
collar is included with the Sigma lens. So the comparison is really
£578 for the Canon vs £649 for the Sigma.

I know that Sigma lenses have a bit of a reputation for incompatibility
with newer Digital EOS Camera's however personally, I've had no problems
with the current 18-200mm lens. Also if the lens is relatively new, it
can be re-programmed usually.

I'm wondering though, is it worth spending the extra to get faster Sigma
glass or does the Canon "L" glass just blow it away?

--
Regards,

JasonB
September 5, 2005 4:30:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

jasonb <jasonb@nospam4.me> wrote in news:qoVSe.4494$ix3.2497
@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> I've narrowed it down to a choice of two lenses, the Sigma 70-200mm
> f/2.8 EX DG or the Canon 70-200mm f4 L lens.
>
> According to www.WarehouseExpress.com the Canon 70-200mm costs £487.00
> and the Sigma lens costs £649.99. However, Canon don't include the
> tripod collar with the L lens and this costs an extra £89.00, while the
> collar is included with the Sigma lens. So the comparison is really
> £578 for the Canon vs £649 for the Sigma.

But the Canon lens is lighter and doesn’t really need the tripod collar.

> I'm wondering though, is it worth spending the extra to get faster Sigma
> glass or does the Canon "L" glass just blow it away?

Everything of read on these lenses says that both are very sharp and you
probably can’t tell the difference in sharpness.

The Canon is cheaper, lighter and has the Canon name.
The Sigma is 1 stop faster, but dearer, heavier and bigger.
The best choice probably depends on whether you need the f2.8 or not.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
September 5, 2005 4:30:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

MarkH wrote:


> The Canon is cheaper, lighter and has the Canon name.
> The Sigma is 1 stop faster, but dearer, heavier and bigger.
> The best choice probably depends on whether you need the f2.8 or not.
>
>

The other thing to consider is resale valve, the sigma won't be worth
anywhere near what the canon lens will be if you decide to sell it at a
future date.
--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 7:22:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

jasonb wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> I'm thinking about purchasing a lens to replace my Sigma 18-200mm
> f35.-5.6 DC, which although a pretty capable lens, I've found it's very
> soft at the long end. I'd like to replace it with something that gives
> me sharper images.
>
> I've narrowed it down to a choice of two lenses, the Sigma 70-200mm
> f/2.8 EX DG or the Canon 70-200mm f4 L lens.

Canon + Collar = no regrets and a reasonable resale value.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 10:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It kinda surprises me that even in this day that Sigma still have some
'build concerns' with their EX series lens.

T.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 12:46:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1125971605.216925.37620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<tlai909@visto.com> wrote:

> It kinda surprises me that even in this day that Sigma still have some
> 'build concerns' with their EX series lens.

They have "build concerns" with all of their products - and always have.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> jasonb wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I'm thinking about purchasing a lens to replace my Sigma 18-200mm
>> f35.-5.6 DC, which although a pretty capable lens, I've found it's
>> very soft at the long end. I'd like to replace it with something that
>> gives me sharper images.
>>
>> I've narrowed it down to a choice of two lenses, the Sigma 70-200mm
>> f/2.8 EX DG or the Canon 70-200mm f4 L lens.
>
>
> Canon + Collar = no regrets and a reasonable resale value.
>
>
Went down to local Jessops today to buy the Canon 70-200mm F4L only to
find that they had none in stock.

Apparently, Jessops UK have 85 of them on backorder with 150 expected to
be delivered from Canon anytime in the next 2-3 weeks.

Guess I'll have to either buy it from WarehouseExpress or wait for
Jessops to get more stock in. Really wanted to try it out with the
camera before purchasing....

--
JasonB
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 7:10:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

jasonb wrote:

<snip>

> Went down to local Jessops today to buy the Canon 70-200mm F4L only to
> find that they had none in stock.
>
> Apparently, Jessops UK have 85 of them on backorder with 150 expected to
> be delivered from Canon anytime in the next 2-3 weeks.
>
> Guess I'll have to either buy it from WarehouseExpress or wait for
> Jessops to get more stock in. Really wanted to try it out with the
> camera before purchasing....
>
> --
> JasonB

Meant to add, the salesperson did try and flog me a 70-200mm F2.8L but
at £1,700 can you guess my response?

--
JasonB
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1125971605.216925.37620@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <tlai909@visto.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It kinda surprises me that even in this day that Sigma still have some
>>'build concerns' with their EX series lens.
>
>
> They have "build concerns" with all of their products - and always have.

The real concern Sigma have is that one day Randall Ainsworth will
endorse one of their products and ruin his impeccable reputation for
never having said a kind word about the brand, despite their 70~200 f2.8
being a better lens than it's Canon counterpart. But let's not let the
facts stand in the way of good gripe!

--
Douglas,
My name is but a handle on the doorway to my life.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:08:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <431d4077$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
<canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> The real concern Sigma have is that one day Randall Ainsworth will
> endorse one of their products and ruin his impeccable reputation for
> never having said a kind word about the brand, despite their 70~200 f2.8
> being a better lens than it's Canon counterpart. But let's not let the
> facts stand in the way of good gripe!

I'm not the only one to post messages here ripping Sigma.

But let me go on record: I will *NEVER* purchase a Sigma product.

I've been doing photography since 1966 and have watched the products of
Sigma and other companies. They have consistently produced sub-par
products aimed mostly at amateurs who are too cheap to buy OEM.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 9:08:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pix on Canvas wrote:


[...]

--
Douglas,
My name is but a handle on the doorway to my life.


Seems there is a bit of snot on it.

--f you
September 7, 2005 7:57:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060920050610144952%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <431d4077$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The real concern Sigma have is that one day Randall Ainsworth will
>> endorse one of their products and ruin his impeccable reputation for
>> never having said a kind word about the brand, despite their 70~200 f2.8
>> being a better lens than it's Canon counterpart. But let's not let the
>> facts stand in the way of good gripe!
>
> I'm not the only one to post messages here ripping Sigma.
>
> But let me go on record: I will *NEVER* purchase a Sigma product.
>
> I've been doing photography since 1966 and have watched the products of
> Sigma and other companies. They have consistently produced sub-par
> products aimed mostly at amateurs who are too cheap to buy OEM.

What an ignorant snob you are. Sub-par? Hahahaha... Sigma makes some
excellent well-priced lenses (see its EX range) which are sometimes better,
often equal but always cheaper than Canon's offerings. Canon too has many QC
problems with its L lenses too - read the various web sites. For example,
the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8 is about a third of the price of the Canon 70-200
f2.8 L and yet is very well built and is optically as good. What nutter is
going to pay Canon way over the odds and get the same? A: snob who is too
blinded by marketing bs to see the truth. I have the money to buy Canon L
but choose not to do so since I see no advantage to me. Canon's
waterproofing is one reason fro some to buy L but that only makes sense if
you use a 1 series camera too.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 7:57:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:431effd2$0$22926$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> What an ignorant snob you are. Sub-par? Hahahaha... Sigma makes some
> excellent well-priced lenses (see its EX range) which are sometimes
> better, often equal but always cheaper than Canon's offerings. Canon too
> has many QC problems with its L lenses too - read the various web sites.
> For example, the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8 is about a third of the price of the
> Canon 70-200 f2.8 L and yet is very well built and is optically as good.

About 2/3 the price of the equivalent Canon. It's one third the price
of the IS model, which isn't a fair comparison (as the Sigma model doesn't
sport OS). Also, the Canon has one more glass element that adds a little
length and weight than the Sigma.
Regarding 'the reviews', there is a not insignificant number of Sigma
owners who found the optical quality to lag the Canon. But, personally, I
will be better off buying a new Sigma from a retailer and returning it under
warranty if it has an optical quality issue.

Dave
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:37:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

> In article <431d4077$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Pix on Canvas
> <canvaspix@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>The real concern Sigma have is that one day Randall Ainsworth will
>>endorse one of their products and ruin his impeccable reputation for
>>never having said a kind word about the brand, despite their 70~200 f2.8
>>being a better lens than it's Canon counterpart. But let's not let the
>>facts stand in the way of good gripe!
>
>
> I'm not the only one to post messages here ripping Sigma.
>
> But let me go on record: I will *NEVER* purchase a Sigma product.

Suit yourself. I've one Sigma lens & consider it a good value (good
quality at reasonable price).

It gets the job done, and has held up well in use.
September 8, 2005 1:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David Geesaman" <dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D fn19a05vp@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> "LCD" <photonistry@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:431effd2$0$22926$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>
>> What an ignorant snob you are. Sub-par? Hahahaha... Sigma makes some
>> excellent well-priced lenses (see its EX range) which are sometimes
>> better, often equal but always cheaper than Canon's offerings. Canon too
>> has many QC problems with its L lenses too - read the various web sites.
>> For example, the Sigma 70-200 EX f2.8 is about a third of the price of
>> the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L and yet is very well built and is optically as
>> good.
>
> About 2/3 the price of the equivalent Canon. It's one third the price
> of the IS model, which isn't a fair comparison (as the Sigma model doesn't
> sport OS). Also, the Canon has one more glass element that adds a little
> length and weight than the Sigma.
> Regarding 'the reviews', there is a not insignificant number of Sigma
> owners who found the optical quality to lag the Canon. But, personally, I
> will be better off buying a new Sigma from a retailer and returning it
> under warranty if it has an optical quality issue.
>
> Dave

I did say 'about a third'. Looking at Jessops UK, Sigma £600 Canon with IS
£1450 - let's say 2.5 times the price. A significant wad of money. In any
case, their lenses are not meant to be exactly the same but basically fulfil
a similar function. So, if you need IS, then the price hike is what you need
to pay. But £850 for IS and you say an extra element is a little over the
top for something most do not need and certainly not at 2.5 times the price.
Also, I defy anyone to tell images apart. As far as I can see from the Canon
UK site it only sells the IS version and of course the f4 one.

I use the Sigma 100-300 EX f4 which is a lens Canon (i.e. 100-300) does not
make since it is happy selling the 70-200L IS with either a 300L or a TC and
so makes even more loot.

Most reviews in mags etc which I have read have them pretty much equal
optically with the Sigma better at the long end and the Canon at the short.
I see Sigma has just introduced a DG version. It will be interesting to see
if it performs any better.

It is wise for any purchase to buy sensibly. Lenses are so problematic -
both cheap and expensive, Canon, Sigma etc - that buying where you can
return after testing is essential and worth paying a little more for. I
can't imagine 7dayshop or some Hong Kong store being too keen on
exchanging/refunding for a lens which is say left-side soft.
!