Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

scottam10
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Good glass is worth saving for...IMO the best choice is the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II
- you'll appreciate the image quality long after you've forgotten the price.
And it will hold its resale value well

When I was starting out I bought a few Tamron/Sigma lenses, but if you consider resale value and focus speed/accuracy I reckon the Canons are a better option.

You also need to consider the size/weight of the lens. The 70-200mm f4L IS is around the same price as the 2.8 non-IS, and gives superb image quality. It's a great option for wildlife/backpacking because it's only half the weight of the 2.8 (around 750g Vs 1.5kg for the 2.8)

- if you're stopping the Sigma down to f/4 for sharpness anyway, then you may as well save the weight and get a Canon f4, which is sharp wide open

Feb 25, 2013 at 05:03 AM

ComicDom1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

I vote the the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens. There are lots of people who do like Sigma and I am sure they make some good products, but my personal experience has taught me that I have better luck with Canon lenses. I think you might find a slight difference in color between the glass as well.

Jason

Feb 25, 2013 at 05:08 AM

charityd
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

I vote for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II as well! If anyone wants to sell me one in my $900 price range, let me know. :-P

Yeah, I know that good glass is worth saving up for, but the ~$2,000 is completely outside of my price range. Up until now, my most expensive lens was around $600, so this lens is definitely "saving up" for me.

Scott, I quite agree with your point of "if you're stopping the Sigma down to f/4 for sharpness anyway, then you may as well save the weight and get a Canon f4, which is sharp wide open," which is one major reason I'm shying away from the Sigma. I think most of the time this lens will be a portrait lens for me, not a wildlife lens, which is why I really want to go for the f/2.8 over the f/4.

dkmiles - I'm planning on buying either lens used, so returning it would be difficult. However, it does look like I could probably resell either of the lenses for about what I paid for them if it didn't work out. I really wish I could just rent both the lenses, but no one locally (Denver, CO) seems to rent the Sigma and the price of shipping to rent online just isn't worth it to me.

Thanks for all the feedback!

Feb 25, 2013 at 05:50 AM

robbymack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

charityd wrote:
I vote for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II as well! If anyone wants to sell me one in my $900 price range, let me know. :-P

Yeah, I know that good glass is worth saving up for, but the ~$2,000 is completely outside of my price range. Up until now, my most expensive lens was around $600, so this lens is definitely "saving up" for me.

Scott, I quite agree with your point of "if you're stopping the Sigma down to f/4 for sharpness anyway, then you may as well save the weight and get a Canon f4, which is sharp wide open," which is one major reason I'm shying away from the Sigma. I think most of the time this lens will be a portrait lens for me, not a wildlife lens, which is why I really want to go for the f/2.8 over the f/4.

dkmiles - I'm planning on buying either lens used, so returning it would be difficult. However, it does look like I could probably resell either of the lenses for about what I paid for them if it didn't work out. I really wish I could just rent both the lenses, but no one locally (Denver, CO) seems to rent the Sigma and the price of shipping to rent online just isn't worth it to me.

Thanks for all the feedback!

there is nothing wrong with shooting portraits at f4, in fact f2.8 is sometimes a trade off in dof. I've shot thousands of portraits with a 70-200 f4 IS, it's fantastic. the price and the weight of the 2.8 zooms are real turn offs for me, so if I want shallow dof or just need the speed I grab a 135L or 85 1.8.

Feb 25, 2013 at 06:21 AM

Ferrophot
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

With the 2.8s weight becomes an issue. I would also include one of the 70-200F4s in my considerations. The 70-200mm is a long term lens purchase. Most photographers keep them for a long time. I think the decision point for Charity is the wedding work. Are those dim churches going to need 2.8? If so then that has to be the way to go. If not then I think I'd go for an F4L, IS? The latest bodies seem much improved at high ISO, one more reason to consider the F4.

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:20 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Maybe 'cos I'm biased but for your $900 budget the 80-200L is by far the best lens around
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_80~200_28l.html

Ok it does have its slight AF drawbacks but its by the nicest portrait options around.

As said 200mm even on a crop body is short for wildlife anyway , and adding a TC to most of these zooms is not a great idea.
They are ok with a 1.4 most of the time but then 80mm gain can easily be cropped from a non TC'd lens . But the only one that really takes a 2x TC well enough to be a consideration (but you still get an AF penalty) is the most expensive option in the list anyway (mk2 IS) .

Shop around and you can get a 80-200 (mdp) and 100-400 for the cost of the mk2 IS .

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:42 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

tanglefoot47 wrote:
Oh yeah it gets really expensive sending lenses back after awhile the savings is gone by Canon

Mikey I think you mistaking 'sending back' for 'selling on FM'

How many 100-400's have you 'sent back' now ?

Oh yeah I just looked . 550 feedback (all positive

)so that's probably 500 100-400's

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:45 AM

ComicDom1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

charityd wrote:
I vote for the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II as well! If anyone wants to sell me one in my $900 price range, let me know. :-P

Yeah, I know that good glass is worth saving up for, but the ~$2,000 is completely outside of my price range. Up until now, my most expensive lens was around $600, so this lens is definitely "saving up" for me.

Scott, I quite agree with your point of "if you're stopping the Sigma down to f/4 for sharpness anyway, then you may as well save the weight and get a Canon f4, which is sharp wide open," which is one major reason I'm shying away from the Sigma. I think most of the time this lens will be a portrait lens for me, not a wildlife lens, which is why I really want to go for the f/2.8 over the f/4.

dkmiles - I'm planning on buying either lens used, so returning it would be difficult. However, it does look like I could probably resell either of the lenses for about what I paid for them if it didn't work out. I really wish I could just rent both the lenses, but no one locally (Denver, CO) seems to rent the Sigma and the price of shipping to rent online just isn't worth it to me.

Thanks for all the feedback!

No one said good glass was inexpensive. There is a reason that many people pay for the quality of L glass and buy this particular lens. Canon happens to sell a lot of them.

If you are going to take mostly portraits then I would go for the 85 1.8 which is in your price range esp with the current rebates and will most likely be with you a long time.

Jason

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:48 AM

Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Oh yeah ill say good glass costs .

But you also have to factor in a couple of other variables

In general good canon (or Nikon if that's your thing) glass holds its value very well . While most 3rd party glass looses quite a bit of its value quickly.

Even where there is no real alternative (a sector sigma do very well) like the 120-300/2.8 . I can't think of any other long 2.8 zoom (and its a great lens) .
I've just picked up a year old one 2nd hand for just over £1k . It cost the guy £2k (I saw the receipt)

.

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:58 AM

robinlee
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Hi, I am pretty sure Sigma has caught up with the build quality and most importantly the IQ over the years (see Sigma 35mm 1.4) and their upcoming 120-300mm 2.8 OS. I am sure it will be a terrific lens to own and it has focus limiter as well! I will be looking to purchase this lens but I am having my own dilemma now with the Sigma 500mm f4.5 for wildlife photos.

However, if you do not need 2.8, just go for 70-200mm F4L IS - it is superb lens for its money and size. I tried to part with it to purchase a super telephoto but just could not do it. I revisited using the F4L IS on a portrait shoot out and I swear to God, the picture is PIN sharp at RAW and view in PC. Ok it was F11 aperture but F4 is sharp. I do not think there are any weakness with this lens, they are extremely light, sharp wide open, IS, USM and a focus limiter switch. What more do you want? Oh and they are WHITE

Robin

Feb 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM

gwaww
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Charity,
I have had all 3 of the lenses that are mentioned here. I owned th Canon non- OS for a long time and mine was extremely sharp. Main drawback-heavy and no IS. The Sigma is also very sharp and the OS works very well. The fact that you can't zoom the lens with the lens cap stored on the lens backwards bugs me. The zoom ring gets covered! The Canon MKII is very sharp but is heavy and overpriced. In real world shooting, the IQ difference between the 3 is negligible. I like the Sigma a lot and I think it is the best value of the 3. The difference between the Sigma the the MKII is that the Canon has slightly faster focus and a little bit quicker IS. Is that worth double the price to you? The Sigma has triple the warranty.

Feb 25, 2013 at 01:23 PM

tanglefoot47
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Oh yeah it gets really expensive sending lenses back after awhile the savings is gone by Canon

Mikey I think you mistaking 'sending back' for 'selling on FM'

How many 100-400's have you 'sent back' now ?

Oh yeah I just looked . 550 feedback (all positive

)so that's probably 500 100-400's

Don't sell anything here with an issue if I buy new I send it back.

Feb 25, 2013 at 03:06 PM

Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

tanglefoot47 wrote:
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Oh yeah it gets really expensive sending lenses back after awhile the savings is gone by Canon

Mikey I think you mistaking 'sending back' for 'selling on FM'

How many 100-400's have you 'sent back' now ?

Oh yeah I just looked . 550 feedback (all positive

)so that's probably 500 100-400's

Don't sell anything here with an issue if I buy new I send it back.

I'm only pulling your leg Mike

I know you'd never pass on an issue item . 550 good feedback and no bad says that

Feb 25, 2013 at 03:12 PM

Snopchenko
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

I would've chosen the Sigma 70-200 OS because I can't imagine using a telephoto lens without IS (past 70-85mm, anyways) but I would've taken the time to carefully choose the best sample available. Alternatively, the new Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC looks like a fine (if a bit pricey thus far) lens.

Feb 25, 2013 at 03:41 PM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

charityd wrote:
Jim - Yes, I'm debating on whether or not I need the IS. I think most of the time I will be shooting with this lens I'll be shooting outside during the day, so it doesn't seem like IS would be as a big an issue. If I'm in the mood for indoor portraits, I have my 50mm 1.4. The one case where I could possibly use a long zoom in low light would be indoor event photography. I don't do that often but I could see myself using the lens then. The question is will I need the IS often enough to justify the lower IQ of the Sigma? I'm still having a hard time answering that...

No, for most of the time, you do not NEED it. Look at how many photographers did quite well without IS for years.

Too many depend on IS instead of using a tripod.

Go for the Canon.

Feb 25, 2013 at 03:53 PM

ComicDom1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Oh yeah ill say good glass costs .

But you also have to factor in a couple of other variables

In general good canon (or Nikon if that's your thing) glass holds its value very well . While most 3rd party glass looses quite a bit of its value quickly.

Even where there is no real alternative (a sector sigma do very well) like the 120-300/2.8 . I can't think of any other long 2.8 zoom (and its a great lens) .
I've just picked up a year old one 2nd hand for just over £1k . It cost the guy £2k (I saw the receipt)

.

Oh I know the Sigma 120-300 2.8 cost $2000.00 new. I know I had one when they were first released. Like some Sigma lenses that lens had an issue when it was first released and had to either have the chip re-programed or replaced( I do not remember which). The Sigma was also built very tight and it could be difficult in the early models to get it started when moving from 120mm to the 300mm end. I think I posted about that at the time on Dpreview. I ended up returning to my dealer who sold me a Canon 300 2.8 Non IS lens that she had new in the box on the shelf.

The 300 2.8 ended up costing me $1000.00 more than the Sigma, but it was better built, faster focusing, and Sharper. Most likely other than the 200 1.8 the sharpest glass I have ever owned and shot. That was both on the Original 1D CCD sensor and the Cmos sensor of the 1D Mark II.

As we know, newer sensors push our lenses harder today. I think what it really comes down to is where your priorities are.

Is the final result " Quality of the image" you produce the most important thing to you?

Is it more important to buy an inexpensive decent or so-so lens to save money get by?

Which of the two is more important for you in the long run?

Do you think you will buy a new camera if the future with a more demanding sensor?

These are just some things to think about.

If look at this from an engineering point then design, materials, and operation come into play as well.

There is a reason that Snap-on wrenches became very sought after and popular with Automotive mechanics. They were certainly more expensive compared to the competition.

As far as IS or no IS is concerned, whether you need it or not is up to you. Personally I shot most of my life without it until 2001-2002. Many of us had shot without it. IS has its benefits but you can use a monopod, tripod, adjust your iso or shutter speed, or use flash. Any of what I mentioned will get you by without IS in most situations.

Wow that sounds a lot like what we used to do in the old days before we had digital or IS and shot film.

Jason

Feb 25, 2013 at 04:58 PM

GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Between the lenses you mention, I would get the Sigma. It is a very nice lens - mine is sharp at 2.8 and better than the Canon IS v. 1 I had. It is not as good as the v. II, but the difference is marginal. Both are quite heavy.

While we're spending your money though, I wanted to note that 200mm will feel very, very short on your cruise. Renting a 100-400 or even a superzoom like Canon's sx50 might be a better option for that trip.

Feb 25, 2013 at 05:09 PM

tanglefoot47
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

Ian.Dobinson wrote:
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Oh yeah it gets really expensive sending lenses back after awhile the savings is gone by Canon

Mikey I think you mistaking 'sending back' for 'selling on FM'

How many 100-400's have you 'sent back' now ?

Oh yeah I just looked . 550 feedback (all positive

)so that's probably 500 100-400's

Don't sell anything here with an issue if I buy new I send it back.

I'm only pulling your leg Mike

I know you'd never pass on an issue item . 550 good feedback and no bad says that

Yes I figured that my leg gets pulled a lot around here

Feb 26, 2013 at 01:15 AM

kezeka
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

I went through this decision making process when I bought my first 70-200 as well. It didn't take a lot of research to discover that sigma lenses tend to 1) not be the most reliable 2) don't hold their value as well and 3) have a lot of variation between copies of the same lens.

I wanted a solid lens that would last me for years, and that is exactly what I got when I purchased the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. I went 5 years without IS in low light concert photography and taking portraits and taking event photos in some of the gnarliest lighting situations out there. It survived just fine and took phenomenal photos to prove it. Is IS helpful? Sure (thats why I just bought the IS mkII and sold the other one) but I would much rather have a lens I can trust to be there for me than deal with an occasionally flaky sigma. After reading this article on the-digital-picture recently, I found myself somewhat vindicated in those beliefs:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4068

Best of luck choosing but I was always glad to have stuck with the canon L without IS. I think you would be too. I might also add that despite buying my 70-200 2.8 L non-is brand new and having owned it for 5 years, I only lost $150 when I sold it. Pretty amazing

Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07 AM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Canon 70-200 2.8L non-IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

tanglefoot47 wrote:
Yes I figured that my leg gets pulled a lot around here

No, don't say that.

Feb 26, 2013 at 02:16 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end