Sigma vs Canon

My current optics are Canon 24-105/4 IS and Sigma 100-300/4.
I was wondering to change that. To sell Sigma and to buy Canon 70-200/4 IS.
I see that this lens beats Canon 70-200/2.8 with/without IS version in
optical quality. Is this visible in normal use?
I mean, 2 is bigger than 1, on a paper. But in real life, can someone tell
the differnce?
Sigma has -300mm range. Canon -200mm. But Canon has IS. Maybe, someday in
the future I will buy Canon 300/4 IS. Maybe. But leave that now on the side.

Is Canon better than Sigma? How much?
Now I have range from 24-300, perfect. In other case, I will have 24-105 and
70-200. Overlap (70-105) is not such a problem. But than again, I would buy
a lens which is only 100mm more than 24-105.
Hm. And to buy extra 300/4 IS is not so cheap.

I don't need 2.8 because I'm not sport photographer or something. Sometimes
on my ex Sigma 70-200/2.8 I used 2.8 or 3.5, but not so often.

The reason why I am asking you that is because I had KM 7D and it has IS in
the camera body. So, every lens attached to the body was stabilized. And
with IS always on, many times you don't know when IS helped you or not.
IS on Canon lens seems very very attractive.

Any experience with those lens?

Thank you in advance.


Alan

 

It is difficult to make an f/2.8 zoom perform as well as an f/4 zoom,
all things being equal. So it is not surprising that the 70-200mm f/4
is a slightly better performer. I doubt that the difference is great;
I am very happy with my f/2.8. But it is heavy and bulky and there
are times when I wish I had the lighter and more compact f/4.

Look at the resale values for both lenses. Buy the Canon new and sell
it on eBay as used, but in mint condition, and you will lose very
little money. Buy the Sigma new and sell it on eBay as used, but in
mint condition, and you will lose a much higher percentage of its
original price. You will probably lose more in cash terms too.

That should tell you which lens is the better buy.

 

Yes. That's true. Allthough many people told me that if you stop-down 2.8 to
4 is better than lens with 4 wide open. In this case is not.
A had in my hand (friend and I was sitting in a bar) Eos 350 and 70-300 from
Canon. And very strange thing happend. My hand were shaking. I had a feeleng
that something is missing. Then I took my 5d and Sigma 100-300. Much bigger,
heavier. And it's easier for me to hold that heavier eq. than 350 etc.

I wanted to buy 70-200/2.8 IS, but it is even worse than 2.8 regular. Hm.
And 70-200/4 IS is better than 2.8.
Lately, I was checking these test on the web and it's just getting more
confusing. With all these numbers etc.

True. But I already have this Sigma. If I have to choose between those two,
there would be a problem. But now, I don't know if this extra cost will
bring me more quality. And loosing a little bit of mm at the end. (300mm).

Thx.

 

You're welcome. A lot depends on how often you use the Sigma lens in
the 200-300mm range. Only you can decide how important that range is.

Another thought. Having the 24-105mm and 70-200mm would give you a
useful overlap between the 70mm and 105mm focal lengths. If you need
a focal length in that range, you don't have to change lenses.

With your existing combination of 24-105mm and 100-300mm, there is
hardly any overlap, so you will have to change lenses more often.

 

Yes, it's true. I don't use the 200-300mm range very often. But, since I
have it now, maybe it's more like this feeling of loosing it.
But what I really want is optical quality. This extra 100mm is not so
important to me.
The only problem is those test where you can see any numbers etc... And I
find very hard to beleive that what you can see on the paper can see also in
real situation.
Therefore I have some doubts.

At the end, it will come only to that that Canon has IS, which is very
helpful item. Rather than 100mm extra f.l.
I see that many photographers use Canon 70-200/2.8. And it's very tempting
to have 2.8 becasue I used to have Sigma like that, very good feeling
holding it in my hand, but not so often use 2.8-4 range.

Thank you.

 

Oops - I appear to have pressed the wrong button and sent this straight to
the original poster - sorry Lagonda.

Here it is again

I have the 70-200mm f2.8 (non IS) and the 70-200mm f4 IS. I bought the f4
because I found the f.2.8 heavy to drag about - and I rarely used it at
faster apeture than f4 (people in street theatre/carnivals and the like).
I've hardly used the f2.8 since buying the f4 IS. I shall keep the f2.8 for
occasional use at sports matches, at the longer distances the f2.8 will be
useful in keeping the dop small as well as giving me a faster shutter speed.

As for sharpness - they are both excellent. I know that tests report that
the f2.8 is less sharp than the f4 IS; but using the f2.8 at f4 (to make it
fair) on a FOVC camera such as the 40D, I don't see a real world difference.
I happily use the f4 IS fully open and it's sharp as a tack. I've used both
with a 1.4x converter and they still perform well. However, if I know I'm
going to need more focal length I prefer to use my 300mm f4 IS - which I
also use fully open with excellent results.

John

 

Thx.

I replied to your e-mail.