Lens Choice

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

With the rebates that are out there now, I have come across a dilemma for choosing a new lens.... Do I go with:

1) Sigma 70-200 OS, OR
2) Canon 70-200 USM...

Yes, if $$ were no object, the Canon 70-200 IS II would be a no brainer... BUT it is. The main differences I see are the lack of IS for the Canon and it being an older lens design/technology. The Sigma does seem to focus a bit slower, but how is it in real world use for sports and fast action? I would be using it on a gripped 7D.

Any thoughts or insight would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Gary W.

 

[ecka]

Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS HSM has better optics than the first EF 70-200/2.8L USM, if you are talkin about that one.

 

[jdramirez]

I haven't used the sigma... and I did see an analysis of its sharpness which then made me want to get a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/4

But I think it is still a fine lens, but suffers in comparison to the best zoom in the market.

I owned the canon f/2.8 usm for about a month... and I wasn't blown away. In comparison to the shots I took with my 100mm F/2.8L Macro IS, they were really not as impressive. I will say I was responsible for messing up one of the days when I put a polarizing filter on during a cloudy day (which was totally unnecessary) and it cut down my shutter speed from 1/2000 to around 1/500 and I was stupid and kept the iso at 100.

But even when I took off the filter... I wasn't in love with the images.

 

[crasher8]

I'm very happy with my Tamron 70-200 Di VC.

 

[rs]

Which Canon 70-200 are you thinking of? Obviously that Sigma 70-200 OS is gunning for the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II with its similar specs, but other than beating it well and truly on price, it can't begin to get close to the Canon when it comes to real life performance.

As for something from Canon that's nearer to a sensible price, the three other Canon 70-200's (2.8 non IS, and the two f4 versions) are all great options. Out of the three, I'd actually recommend the f4 IS. On paper its specs aren't up to the Sigma (its a whole stop slower), but its weather sealed (unlike the non IS Canon 70-200's and the Sigma), has 4 stop IS, its light weight, and its performance is beyond what the raw specs suggest.

Canon 70-200/4 IS vs Sigma, both at f4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=806&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=404&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Or if you want to compare the f2.8 non IS to the Sigma, try this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=806&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=242&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[rizenphoenix]

Hey all,

With the rebates that are out there now, I have come across a dilemma for choosing a new lens.... Do I go with:

1) Sigma 70-200 OS, OR
2) Canon 70-200 USM...

Yes, if $$ were no object, the Canon 70-200 IS II would be a no brainer... BUT it is. The main differences I see are the lack of IS for the Canon and it being an older lens design/technology. The Sigma does seem to focus a bit slower, but how is it in real world use for sports and fast action? I would be using it on a gripped 7D.

Any thoughts or insight would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Gary W.

Buy the Canon, It's sharper, plus it AF's faster and more accurately. IS/OS isn't important for sports/ fast action. I am assuming you mean the current model of the Canon 70-200 L f2.8 Non-IS

 

[Don Haines]

I went with the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. I was looking for a lens for outdoor use so F2.8 didn't really have great appeal to me, I rarely use mine at f4, usually between F5.6 and F8. I was happier with a lighter lens. The Canon 70-200 is a sharper lens, and has faster autofocus.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Hey all,

With the rebates that are out there now, I have come across a dilemma for choosing a new lens.... Do I go with:

1) Sigma 70-200 OS, OR
2) Canon 70-200 USM...

Yes, if $$ were no object, the Canon 70-200 IS II would be a no brainer... BUT it is. The main differences I see are the lack of IS for the Canon and it being an older lens design/technology. The Sigma does seem to focus a bit slower, but how is it in real world use for sports and fast action? I would be using it on a gripped 7D.

Any thoughts or insight would be appreciated! Thanks in advance!

Gary W.

I'd go with the Canon. Its excellent, assuming you are talking about the 70-200mm f.2.8L (Non IS) If you ever go to FF, the Canon will pull away.

Note that at the wider apertures and at 200mm, the Sigma is weak. Its good at f/5.6, but you don't need to pay all that money to lug around a lens and use it at f/5.6. Since you are likely to use a lens at 200mm and f/2.8 for sports, the Sigma is a disaster there.


If you do get the Sigma, try to find a used one. they don't hold their value as well as Canon, so it should be cheap.

 

[robbymack]

I'm very happy with my Tamron 70-200 Di VC.

Is this the new one? If so very curious as to your thoughts on the lens.

 

[crasher8]

I'm very happy with my Tamron 70-200 Di VC.

Is this the new one? If so very curious as to your thoughts on the lens.

In a nutshell I have ZERO complaints. Great contrast, color rendition, fast AF, 3-4 stops VC (IS) I feel like I got the Canon flagship 70-200 for 600 less and it's black.

 

[ecka]

You see , it's a big problem when people are talking about different lenses and think that it is the same one.

Canon EF 70-200/2.8L USM - 1995
Canon EF 70-200/4L USM - 1999
Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM - 2001
Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - 2006
Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS II USM - 2010

Sigma EF 70-200/2.8 EX DG HSM - 2005
Sigma EF 70-200/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro - 2006
Sigma EF 70-200/2.8 EX DG II HSM Macro - 2007
Sigma EF 70-200/2.8 EX DG OS HSM - 2010

 

[Nishi Drew]

I am pretty happy with my Sigma 70-200 OS, as I don't do action/sports so the not-as-fast AF isn't a big issue, while it's sharp enough wide open it's no complaints @ F4. However the heavy vignetting at the long end has been upsetting, especially in dark conditions where with my 5D2 attempting to fix that results in a noisy circle.
I have other Sigma glass like the marvelous 35mm, but I got the tele purely for the price, after nearly a year of use though I can conclude the 70-200 IS mkII or just the 135L would have been worth it, even though I go 200mm quite often (and speaking of the 135L Sigma may bring out a 135 F/1.8 so I'm now waiting to see what turns out with that).

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

For all those confused on which lens(es) I am referring to... The only Canon 70-200 ƒ2. 8 the does not have IS AND the latest version of the Sigma with OS. I am looking at about $50 difference on each lens new.

Gary W.

 

[jdramirez]

Hey all,

For all those confused on which lens(es) I am referring to... The only Canon 70-200 ƒ2. 8 the does not have IS AND the latest version of the Sigma with OS. I am looking at about $50 difference on each lens new.

Gary W.

I know the people say the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM is tack sharp... but I found it lacking. I owned two (tested both and was going to keep the better of the options) and I didn't like either enough. My 100mm f/2.8L prime blew both of them away... and I know we are comparing primes v. zooms... but I wanted something that would hopefully come close to my prime... and the lens just didn't.

I haven't used the Sigma... but I'd probably lean that way by default.

 

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Went with option 4.... Tamron 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 Di VC USD!! So far, great lens! Only a hair behind Canon's Mk II! All with no sales tax, to boot!!

Gary W.

 

[Grumbaki]

Something i didn't see in your OP is "I need it right now!"

Rebates come and go so this isn't the pressing issue.

Canon 2.8 II is top of the line and will stay so for a while. Might worth waiting a few months to grind the extra $$ and avoid yourself a switcharoo later...