Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2014 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

terenceng
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I have had the m1 before but sold it couple of years back. Now I am looking to get a 70-200 but can't afford the m1 and the sigma can be found under 1k, I am thinking about selling the 100 f2 for it, or should I save up to get the tamron or the m1?

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:40 AM

JaejinLee
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I'm also looking for a nice 70-200 2.8 however the Canon IS Mark I is out of my budget. I've been researching a lot about the Sigma and Tamron counterpart.
For me, it can't justify spending that much money on the Canon version because I don't make money off of photos, so it is third party for me.
As for af speed and such, I have heard that the Sigma is pretty darn close to the Canon. In terms of IQ, I notice the Tamron is Oh so slightly better than the Sigma. I'm leaning towards the Sigma since it's a bit cheaper and am buying used. However the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS will always be hailed as the best of the 70-200's

If you're like me and shoot as a hobby, I think you'll be happy with either the Sigma or Tamron as they are all within 90% of each other. Sigma has really stepped up their game.

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:52 AM

terenceng
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Thanks for your reply. The IQ of the m1 is the base standard for me And i am not sure if the sigma Can surpass it.

Jun 15, 2014 at 02:10 AM

YonathanZ
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

There's a post on POTN comparing the Sigma OS to the Tamron VC (which is close in sharpness to the MK II). I'm not sure if it's OK to link to it here, but the Sigma is significantly less sharp everywhere but in the center. Then again, the Tamron IS sharper than even the MK II, but you can check DPReview's Studio Comparison test of the two lenses, if they have that.

Jun 15, 2014 at 02:47 AM

Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Like I said in the past, I strongly advise against buying 3rd party lenses in 70-200 range. They may offer comparable sharpness in static situation, but whenever you need the AI Servo performance, the Canon will deliver. 3rd party lenses - not so much. The Canons are well proven workhorses, that will withstand daily professional use and abuse. So buying them makes even more sense for amateurs. I've had my 70-200 f2,8L for 4 years and after this time that thing looks like it just came out of the box.
So - if you don't absolutely need this lens right away, save for it a bit longer, buy the best Canon you can (I'd say the IS MK2) and be done with it for good.

Jun 15, 2014 at 06:20 AM

bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I agree that the original lenses are better than the third party offerings. If the EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS II is too expensive, why not buy the excellent, fast focusing, durable but affordable non-IS version instead?

Bogatyr

Jun 15, 2014 at 11:02 AM

ebiggs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

terenceng wrote:
I have had the m1 before but sold it couple of years back. Now I am looking to get a 70-200 but can't afford the m1 and the sigma can be found under 1k, I am thinking about selling the 100 f2 for it, or should I save up to get the tamron or the m1?

Currently I have both and I use both. The Canon 70-200mm f2.8 Mk II is the ultimate. We all agree. However, the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is darn good. I doubt anybody, unless you are a pixel peeper, will be able to tell the difference in the finished photo. Especially taking into consideration on how the photo will be used.

Even the Tamron, I used one for a while is very good. Not as good as the Sigma but very good indeed.

There are places where none of these 3rd party lenses come even close to Canon. That is build quality. QA is often touted as the only spec to consider. It is not. How well the lens focuses. How well it is built. And even how well it is supported. A broken lens that you can't get repaired is next to worthless. Sigma trounces Tamron or Tokina for that matter. Sigma is close to Canon in their service.

If you buy a used 3rd party lens make sure it works before you lay your money down. Their used reputation isn't as stellar as their new rating is.

Jun 15, 2014 at 11:27 AM

lowa2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I have the sigma OS and had the 70-200/4IS before. Honestly, in terms of IQ the difference is negligible. The af works very well in the dark with the sigma since its 2.8.

I compared side to side the non IS 2.8 Canon and the sigma, and I chose sigma. Its just sharper.

Jun 15, 2014 at 11:52 AM

jnsiv
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

bogatyr wrote:
I agree that the original lenses are better than the third party offerings. If the EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS II is too expensive, why not buy the excellent, fast focusing, durable but affordable non-IS version instead?

Bogatyr
Here Here, what he said...

The non IS 2.8 is sharper anyways and I like the finished product a little better (personal experience using multiple copies)...

John

Jun 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM

ebiggs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Bogatyr
Here Here, what he said...

The non IS 2.8 is sharper anyways ...

John

If you can hold it still that is!

Jun 15, 2014 at 12:49 PM

GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I've had the S. OS (and prior sigma models) the old tamron, and now have the canon mk II. For pure IQ in the center, there isn't much to dostinguish. As one poster said before through, the Canon focuses a bit better and I find my keeper rate to be much improved (though perhaps not 900 improved).

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:18 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Not being Canon-religion-based, I'll just say that my first 70-200 f/2.8 lens was the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM.

It was wonderful. I used it for years with my 10D, taking everything from landscapes to sports (soccer, basketball, volleyball and lacrosse), with excellent success.

I only sold it when the Canon IS II version came out and got such rave reviews. I do love my Canon version, but I don't agree with folks who blanket pan third-party offerings, which can provide excellent value.

I do not know the newest version of the Sigma lens, but I certainly can enthusiastically endorse the value in the one I owned and used for years.

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:25 PM

AnthonyRay
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I love my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS to pieces. It's one of the best lenses I own, and I'd only put my 24-70 f2.8 II and 100L f2.8 IS macro in front of it, and not by much.

It was designed to compete with the first generation 70-200 lenses from Canon and Nikkor - and I think it beats both of them. For a really good interactive chart - go to dpreview. (One of the few things they've done well) You can compare the Sigma with the other 2 first gen lenses (FF and crop), as well as the II from Canon. The charts are especially well done as you can see the characteristics of each lens, and where each excels. You can set the aperture and the focal length and compare any 2 lenses at the same time.

While I think the Sigma can be as good in spots as the II, the II is the gold standard, no doubt. However, I've had a couple of chances to jump on a new Canon and haven't - because honestly I've been hard pressed to tell the difference pixel peeping. I was especially sure I'd be moving on once I went FF, but if anything the Sigma was even better. Which is fine, it's allowed me to get other lenses!

The build is very good, and I don't feel I'm missing diddly when I go from any of my L lenses to it. While some might, I don't stand out in the rain and take pictures, so that's certainly a consideration with the Canons. If there's one place the Sigma falls down, it's breathing. It's in good company with the Nikkor 70-200 though, and it may or may not be an issue for you. Other than that, I've had as high a hit rate as any other lens - it's fast and it's sharp. If it's hampered by corner softness I've not seen it - it also seems the type of photography I do with a lens like that corners are not an issue (unlike my UWA lenses). Also as you know - these things are what I consider "bag lenses", meaning I don't walk around much with a 3lb. lens on my camera!

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:39 PM

runamuck
Offline
• • • • • •
[X]

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

I had a Sigma for years that saw little use. It was just too heavy. I finally gave up and bought a 70-200 f4. Nolw I use it quite a bit. I know you said f2.8 but few of us need the 2.8. especially as hobvyists

Jun 15, 2014 at 01:57 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

runamuck wrote:
I had a Sigma for years that saw little use. It was just too heavy. I finally gave up and bought a 70-200 f4. Nolw I use it quite a bit. I know you said f2.8 but few of us need the 2.8. especially as hobvyists

I have no problem with someone pointing out the existence of a lighter lens; but I think it's remarkably presumptuous to say "few of us need the 2.8." Go ahead and say that you don't need it, but you certainly cannot speak for me.

Jun 15, 2014 at 02:05 PM

Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

StarNut wrote:
Not being Canon-religion-based, I'll just say that my first 70-200 f/2.8 lens was the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM.

It was wonderful. I used it for years with my 10D, taking everything from landscapes to sports (soccer, basketball, volleyball and lacrosse), with excellent success.

I only sold it when the Canon IS II version came out and got such rave reviews. I do love my Canon version, but I don't agree with folks who blanket pan third-party offerings, which can provide excellent value.

I do not know the newest version of the Sigma lens, but I certainly can enthusiastically endorse the...Show more →

Well, let's see. My copy of Sigma 100-300 f4 EX (one of the best lenses Sigma created, save for the latest offerings) was very nice on 20D and 40D. When I bought the Canon 70-200, I thought I would only use it ocassionally, because I thought the Sigma was good and I've got many keepers with it. But when I shot some real shots with the Canon I realised it was a night and a day difference. The Canon just focuses faster, more accurate and has tremendeously better color rendition.
Then I got 1D Mark IV and the Sigma just doesn't cut it - which is strange because it has the same pixel pitch as 40D so it should be equal (at least that's what the charts and in lab reviews would tell you). And the Canon, which was designed back in the film days shines even more. So yes, from my personal experience, I'd recommend to buy Canon whenever possible - more so in one of the most important telephoto ranges.

Jun 15, 2014 at 02:33 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Milan Hutera wrote:
Well, let's see. My copy of Sigma 100-300 f4 EX (one of the best lenses Sigma created, save for the latest offerings) was very nice on 20D and 40D. When I bought the Canon 70-200, I thought I would only use it ocassionally, because I thought the Sigma was good and I've got many keepers with it. But when I shot some real shots with the Canon I realised it was a night and a day difference. The Canon just focuses faster, more accurate and has tremendeously better color rendition.
Then I got 1D Mark IV and the Sigma...Show more →

While I don't much like such a broad brush, I am happy to stipulate that Canon's best lenses generally are better than third-party offerings.

But that's not the point, at all. The cost of Canon's best is an issue for many, as OP made clear. And the best third-party offerings (among which is the lens under discussion) are excellent, and available at a small fraction of the cost of the Canon offerings. For many, the price/performance of a good third-party lens (especially used) can make excellent sense.

Jun 15, 2014 at 03:05 PM

Milan Hutera
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

StarNut wrote:
While I don't much like such a broad brush, I am happy to stipulate that Canon's best lenses generally are better than third-party offerings.

But that's not the point, at all. The cost of Canon's best is an issue for many, as OP made clear. And the best third-party offerings (among which is the lens under discussion) are excellent, and available at a small fraction of the cost of the Canon offerings. For many, the price/performance of a good third-party lens (especially used) can make excellent sense.

The OP states that "he cannot afford the MK1" and asks "should I save up for Tamron or Sigma". I say he should save up for the best Canon he's able to buy. The Sigma OS is roughly 50% cheaper than Canon IS MK 2 and I agree, it's actually quite a lot of difference. Like I said, the 3rd party offerings can get really close to Canon lenses, and even surpass them in some cases. But in a lot of cases, they ultimately won't perform as good.
Let's say the OP's situation will change. He'll be asked to do some paid gigs, or other situations where he'll have to rely on his gear to get the shots. And there is a great chance he won't be happy with the results from Sigma or Tamron, because the AF won't perform as well.
For all I know, the OP may shoot the static subjects, so the AF performance and consistency won't matter to him. But I'd rather buy a lens that does everything well and use it for decades (possibly) than use a quite expensive lens for a while and then risking the whole process of selling it and eventually losing some money. But my photograhpy standards are much higher than most and I could very well be wrong...

Jun 15, 2014 at 03:27 PM

johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

Go compare the Sigma OS wide open to the Tammy and the Canon; it's just not all there, when otherwise it'd be an excellent lens, with better handling than the Tammy for sure. Sigma's update to it, probably in the 'Sports' line, will likely knock it out of the park, but the current model is just not worth considering over the Tamron if you need f/2.8, or the Canon f/4 IS if you don't. Both lenses blow the aging Sigma's optics out of the water. And if you actually need full servo performance, i.e. you're not using it as a general portrait lens, then the Canon Mk.1 IS and non-IS take the recommendation.

Sigma just doesn't have a dog in this particular fight yet.

Jun 15, 2014 at 03:31 PM

Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · sigma 70-200 os comparable to canon 70-200 2.8 IS m1?

YonathanZ wrote:
There's a post on POTN comparing the Sigma OS to the Tamron VC (which is close in sharpness to the MK II). I'm not sure if it's OK to link to it here, but the Sigma is significantly less sharp everywhere but in the center. Then again, the Tamron IS sharper than even the MK II, but you can check DPReview's Studio Comparison test of the two lenses, if they have that.

Are you saying the new Tamron is close in sharpness to the MKII or is sharper?

From what I've seen, certainly not at 200mm, and the Tamron vignettes heavily at that distance. No in-body corrections either so if you're shooting video with it you'd better like that vignette and distortion.

I've owned lots of 70-200 lenses when I shot Sony. 2 Sony's, 2nd version of the Sigma, the OS version of the Sigma, and the 2nd to last Tamron with the push/pull AF.

The Canon 70-200 II I've had mops the floor with all of them for color/contrast/sharpness/performance and it's not really close. The Sony was garbage and wasn't super sharp even at F/4 - The Tamron was sharp but like to hunt and didn't focus quickly. Out of that bunch I'd say the Sigma OS HSM was the best - I shot it at F/3.5 and was happy.

But you're lugging all that weight around for 2.8 - I use the Canon II wide open exclusively unless I want more DOF. It's a rock star lens and a big part of why I moved back to Canon to begin with.

Jun 15, 2014 at 05:01 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.