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

Discussion in 'Canon' started by jasonb, Sep 5, 2005.

  1. jasonb

    jasonb Guest

    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?
     
    jasonb, Sep 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jasonb

    MarkH Guest

    But the Canon lens is lighter and doesn’t really need the tripod collar.
    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
     
    MarkH, Sep 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. jasonb

    Stacey Guest

    MarkH wrote:

    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, Sep 5, 2005
    #3
  4. jasonb

    Alan Browne Guest

    Canon + Collar = no regrets and a reasonable resale value.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 5, 2005
    #4
  5. jasonb

    tlai909 Guest

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

    T.
     
    tlai909, Sep 6, 2005
    #5
  6. They have "build concerns" with all of their products - and always have.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 6, 2005
    #6
  7. 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!
     
    Pix on Canvas, Sep 6, 2005
    #7
  8. 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.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 6, 2005
    #8
  9. jasonb

    jasonb Guest

    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, Sep 6, 2005
    #9
  10. jasonb

    jasonb Guest

    jasonb wrote:

    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, Sep 6, 2005
    #10
  11. jasonb

    F You Guest

    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
     
    F You, Sep 6, 2005
    #11
  12. jasonb

    LCD Guest

    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.
     
    LCD, Sep 7, 2005
    #12
  13. 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
     
    David Geesaman, Sep 7, 2005
    #13
  14. jasonb

    LCD Guest

    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.
     
    LCD, Sep 7, 2005
    #14
  15. jasonb

    no one Guest

    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.
     
    no one, Sep 8, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.