sigma 70-200f2.8 hsm vs canon 70-200 f4L

john1963

Hi folks need some help. I can get the sigma for 450 second hand, not the latest model. and can buy the canon new for 560. any opinions???. would like it mainly for portraits etc. The sigma seems a bargain but am i better going new for the canon

AnCatDubh

do you mind me asking why such an extreme zoom for portraits? Would you not be better going for a prime say @ 85mm or 100mm or similar.

My instinct would be the sigma but i don't know the specific lens so others may have better advice.

john1963

AnCatDubh wrote: »

do you mind me asking why such an extreme zoom for portraits? Would you not be better going for a prime say @ 85mm or 100mm or similar.

My instinct would be the sigma but i don't know the specific lens so others may have better advice.

i suppose the versatility is attractive. i am not really talking about formal portraits, more children at play types of shot

pippatee

I'd say stick with the canon, far sharper ... and if you're looking for shots of kids at play, you will probably be outside nd have more light to play with,

if your shots are indoors, I'd go for the extra f-stops on the Sigma ...

Valentia

Tough one this. The 2.8 is very good at keeping the background out of focus for portraite. That said the Canon is one of the sharpest lenses on the market. I have the Sigma and hope to, when the government stop robbing me, buy a Canon 2.8L some day. The Sigma is a little too soft. I think I'd go for the Canon.

Borderfox

The 70-200 is very handy when you use it for Portraits as you have a headshot/head-shoulders/full length all in one lens whereas the primes ideally should be used with two cameras with a 50/85 85/135 to get the same versatility. I had the Sigma 70-200 and it was a superb lens but I have heard the Canon f4 is so sharp

AnimalRights

Totally chuffed with the results I've gotten with my 70-200L and I only have it a few weeks!

Mine is the IS version mind.

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Totally chuffed with the results I've gotten with my 70-200L and I only have it a few weeks!

Mine is the IS version mind.

IS make no difference other than weigth if the OP is shooting in good light or on a tripod..

bmcgrath

I've used both. I own the Canon. The Canon is way sharper, far more detail from the photos and much better colour rendition.

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

IS make no difference other than weigth if the OP is shooting in good light or on a tripod..

I never said he should get the IS?

And what if he wasn't shooting in good light or on a tripod.

"By far, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens' most exciting new feature is the image stabilizer. "The image stabilization achieves three shutter speed steps of camera shake correction within 0.5 seconds after the shutter button is depressed halfway and yields correction for up to four full shutter speeds while handheld ..." .
Canon's first 4-stop Image Stabilizer makes this lens just as handholdable in low light as the extremely popular 70-200 f/2.8 IS with its 3-stop stabilizer and wider aperture. You can shoot with this lens hand held at an up-to-4-stop slower shutter speed than with the non-IS Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens. For example (and theoretically), if you need a shutter speed of 1/250 at 200mm without IS to achieve sharp images, you can shoot at 1/15 with the 70-200 f/4 IS with similar results - this is a huge difference. The image stabilizer will compensate for camera movement during the shot (within limits of course).

sasar

If you are interested in the quality aspect, check this site

AnimalRights

The quote I used above is from that site lol!
I love that site! that chart, their reviews, it really is a good site.

Borderfox

If your indoors and the subjects are moving then the Sigma is your man, if they arent then the Canon is.

Ballyman

If you're shooting at 100m f4.0 then the Sigma is also your man!!

There is very little noticeable difference between them so I'd get the Sigma as you have an extra stop to play with and this is very useful when you are indoors or in low light.