I'm looking at possibly getting one of the following lenses:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG OS
I am using a Cannon Rebel T1i and like to shoot mainly sports.
Looking to get more into photography as a hobby but want good quality pictures. My ultimate goal is a 120-300mm f2.8 lens, but that will have to wait a while longer.
Besides the $$ issue, I'm looking for some feedback on these two lenses and possibly picture comparisons if anyone may have them.
If you are shooting mainly sports, you don't need I.S. so you could get by much cheaper getting the non-IS Canon lens which is very good quality. That would be my suggestion unless you are rolling in $.
I've tried both. The Canon is definitely better, but also much more expensive. The Sigma is pretty similar to the v. 1 Canon (and thus pretty good in its own right) but is not as sharp as the v. 2 at 2.8 (where nothing comes close to the v. 2). It's still very useable for sports though. Focus is fast and accurate, but not quite as good as the Canon in my anecdotal experience. There's no way for us determine if the incremental difference in IQ will matter to you. It's real, but the Sigma is a very fine lens in its own right. If you want the best, get Canon. Second best in this category is probably the Sigma. John is right though, that you could probably save a little more and get a non-IS variant.
(Fwiw, my Sigma was better than the copy that the Digital Picture apparently got, which doesn't look good at all. Sample variation is always a concern with Sigma, so bear that in mind and always order from somewhere with a good return policy if you do go that direction.)
I have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (non OS) and the Canon 70-200 /f2.8 IS. I think the Sigma is the best value sports lens made. I shoot mostly with the Sigma. YMMV
Pretty significant difference, imo.
Except that is not the Sigma the OP is refering to. The test is the non OS version which is not as sharp as the new OS Sigma.
I didn't catch that. It's not even the newer version of the non-OS Sigma, but the v. 1, which was so bad Sigma released v. 2 very quickly thereafter...
I have been using the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for most of this year shooting motor sports and dog agility trials. The lens is spectacular and rivals my Canon 300 f/2.8L IS in sharpness and speed.
I have never owned the Sigma 70-200 so can't comment on it.
If you can afford the Canon Ver. II, don't hesitate. It rocks.
I owned the first version (non-OS) of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for almost six years, shooting thousands of photos of, among other things, my kids playing their games. For the price, it's a great lens.
A year ago, I decided to upgrade to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. If the cost doesn't bother you, get it.
You can't go much wrong either way, but the Canon offering is simply spectacular, in every way. Sharp at all apertures, corner to corner (on a full frame sensor); fast AF; takes extenders remarkably well.
There's no wrong answer here, IMO, when factoring in cost. But there's no question that the Canon is a better lens, which will hold its value better over time.
The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L is truly incredible. If you are into a zoom lens that autofocuses so fast you don't even notice it, images blisteringly sharp even wide open, and bokeh that just melts the background then this is your lens. It's pricey.....but.....there are some good deals on it right now. The price has never been this cheap for that lens.
JohnBrose wrote:
If you are shooting mainly sports, you don't need I.S. so you could get by much cheaper getting the non-IS Canon lens which is very good quality. That would be my suggestion unless you are rolling in $.
^ This. ^
The non-IS version of the Canon 70-200/2.8 is cheaper than the Sigma (about $100 less from the prices I've seen brand new), and the quality is significantly better, at least according to the same comparison referenced above. At f2.8, the Canon is far sharper, in particular at the corners.
Since the IS/OS isn't much of a concern if you're primarily shooting sports, I'd say go with the non-IS Canon lens in a heartbeat. I don't shoot a ton of sports (and when I do it's often in terrible indoor lighting) but I find the Canon 70-200/2.8 performs admirably, focusing fast and maintaining very good sharpness throughout the frame and wide open.
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS and I love it. My copy is very sharp, the colors are great and the OS is awesome! I was looking into picking up a Canon v1 and then looked at the new Sigma (which is still cheaper than a Canon 70-200 v1) and it was so good that I bought the Sigma and never looked back. If you are on a budget, get a new lens and go with the Sigma.
