Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II MACRO APO HSM VS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Options
  • 24-03-2010 6:49pm
    #1
    damo2006
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭


    Hi Guys,

    Well I guess my question is here, is the Canon lens really €900- €1000 better than the Sigma equivalent and if so in what areas does the Canon excel in.

    I'd appreciate any views and comments from people who have used both lenses.

    Planned use for the lens would be Motorsports.

    Also in the description of most sites I'm looking at the Sigma has 2 in Roman numerals after it, is this a revised or updated version of the original Sigma 70-200 2.8, and if so what changes were made ?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    swingking
    Registered Users Posts: 4,258 ✭✭✭swingking


    I've used both lenses and the Canon just can't be beaten. You pay for the superior quality of the L glass as well as the super fast focusing and build quality.

    That said, I do think the Sigma is a good lens and works well if you're on a budget.


  • Options
    #3
    Ballyman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Ballyman


    I'd agree with Swingking.

    I've also owned both and the canon is faster to focus and is sharper and obviously it has IS which the Sigma doesn't.

    Ths Sigma however is no slouch either. It's very sharp, the sharpest Sigma lens I owned by a long way and you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between it and the canon without looking at 100% crops.

    You could purchase a Canon 70-200 no IS for about €200 more than the Sigma. You get all the Canon L benefits apart from IS for much less. Unless you will be doing a lot of low light shooting there is no need of the IS.


  • Options
    #4
    hoganpoly
    Registered Users Posts: 604 ✭✭✭hoganpoly


    i have also owned both lenses and my view is like ballyman that it all depends on your budget ,you can pick up the sigma for around €450 and the non is canon for about €750. i swapped my sigma for the canon as sometimes i missed some shots with slow focus issues but since i have been using the non is canon no such problem occurs , i would suggest save for the canon as there will be a few popping up soon on adverts.ie as the new model canon is out now ...also if you wish to get a lend of mine pm me


  • Options
    #5
    Borderfox
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    Sigma produces a warmer looking picture and the Canon is more neutral. Both are very good but the Canon is years ahead in build quality


  • Options
    #6
    FoxT
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    I haven't used either of them but after much research (including this thread, thanks all) I am going after a 2nd hand Canon. If I was into mosports though I'd probably go for the Canon 100-400mm. Smaller aperture but much greater reach. ( Warning: The 100-400 may be unusable with an extender/teleconverter as the aperture would be too small for the AF to work. I don't know for sure)

    I went to a motoGP in the UK last year & I found 300mm was too short... I'd have so much preferred a 400. I found that while panning I was shooting at between 1/125 & 1/500 at f/5.6, and that worked quite well as it kept the mobikes sharp whilst blurring the background. My point being, I dont think you need f/2.8 for that type of situation.

    - FoxT


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Ballyman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,822 ✭✭✭Ballyman


    Borderfox wrote: »
    Both are very good but the Canon is years ahead in build quality

    I'd have to disagree with you there Keith!!

    I don't have an IS version to compare it to but the non IS Canon feels inferior in build to my old 70-200 Sigma.


  • Options
    #8
    Borderfox
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    My sigma 70-200 f2.8 fell apart at the mount, my Canon has not although it takes a huge amount of abuse


  • Options
    #9
    pete4130
    Registered Users Posts: 3,944 ✭✭✭pete4130


    I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 mki ( I think) a few years ago. I got it in late December and had it sold by early February I think. I didn't get a good picture with it. It was just soft. I got better results with the Nikon 70-300mm VR 4.5-6.3 lens.

    I now use the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and its a brilliant lens. I personally have had Sigma and Nikon throughout the years and always ended up being unhappy with the Sigma lenses and sold them on and got the Nikon equivelants.
    Granted I got the 80-200 2.8 cheaper 2nd had (about €450) but it isn't that far behind the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR lens at all.

    The Canon, in my opinion even though I've never used it would be worth the extra €900-€1000.


    You could probably save some money if you ordered it in to Dixons at a UK airport when you knew you were flying and save 17.5% VAT on it plus the exchange rate is pretty good with the sterling right now.


Advertisement