I recently accuired a canon 70-200/f4 and am very happy with it.
Use it mainly for sports (moto cross etc.) up until now i only had good sunny days when shooting with this lens.
Guess it brought me luck
But i am not so sure if the lens will keep up un heavy overcast days shooting in the woods.
I Can get a very good deal exchanging this lens with a new sigma 70-200/2.8
Please give me some good advice.
Should i do it
How will it perform in lower light situations?
The main drawback is that i never owned a sigma and not to foget the weight of the lens!
The major advantage is the 2.8 and it is BLACK!
I think the big white draws to much unwanted attention.
I have a Sigma 70-200 lens and am happy with it but it is a tad bit soft at 2.8 even with sharpening. There is a noticable difference between 2.8 and 4, but it could just be my lens because not everyone has this problem The lens build seems great, very solid, and the black finish is great. The zoom ring is so tight yet smooth is screams quality.
Tough, tough decision. I have both. The Sigma AF is a tad less precise than Canon (it hunts just a bit more before settling). It is also a lot heavier.
For me, the two are for different applications. I use the Canon as a lightweight travel lens with superb quality (highest of any zoom I have tested). The Sigma on the other hand, is heavier but is a cheap way to get into F2.8.
So the main question is, do you mind the extra weight? If not, and don't mind less sharp images, go with the Sigma. Me, I would not. The F4 is one of my favorite zooms. I would instead wait until I could afford the Canon IS version for f2.8 and have both .
Yeah it`s a very tough decision.
Especially the weight since the canon is my heaviest at the moment.
And it doesn`t bother me at all.
But the sigma will be almost twice that weight.
Any comparison pictures of both lenses in heavy overcast situations or indoors?
Eroovers I shoot mx and offroad as well and my main lens is a Quantaray 28-200 f 3.5-5.6 and get good photo's with it. But there are times I wish I had a good 2.8 lens. My next investments will be several Sigma f2.8 lenses. I am still thinking about some primes but not sure about that yet.
Sigma is good but in humid places, Sigma's coatings deteriorates making it hazy specially the rear end element. Experienced this with my own sigma lens but I don't know for their EX series lenses 'coz I have no experienced with those.
Gunblue,
WHAT? Sigma's coating deteriorates in humidity? I live in Florida, general humidity is 90% in the summer. I thought I was going to purchase a Sigma 70-200 2.8, but if this is true...
Do you have any web links to back up this statement or did it happen to you?
Nov 27, 2004 at 07:44 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I have been shooting with Sigma lenses a long time in Thailand and South East Asia. That's the climate that Philippines has. And I have never had any problem.
It did happened to my 70-300 DL. Again, it's not an EX series sigma. And one thing, grease leaked out of the zoom ring. But maybe EX are not like this. If you are going for Sigma, I suggest that go for the EX series. Read a lot of good reviews about those lenses. It's just that after what happened to me, it makes me uneasy to get into Sigma. Read more reviews before you buy.
I shoot mainly my kids outdoors doing sports and indoors at the YMCA, had the choice of 70-200F4 canon or the 70-200F2.8 Sigma, opted for the canon, if I need more speed I just crank the ASA up and post process with neatimage. The autofocus on the canon is lightning fast even after sunset. I would lean toward the canon but that's me. Now only if canon made a reasonable priced F5.6 400mm.
I had the Sigma and loved it. I think the biggest question is - do you want F2.8 and the bokeh produced by F2.8? An F4 lens never can be an F2.8. F2.8 can really isolate the subject, and the Sigma bokeh is quite nice.
If you decide F2.8 is what you want, the next consideration is weight. Whether Canon or Sigma, the f2.8's are heavy - both around 3 pounds. Shooting handheld is do-able, but you'll want to sheet 1/200 or faster (preferably 1/400 or faster). When shooting handheld the battery grip on the 10D/20D is pretty much a given - you need it to help counter balance the nose heavy lens weight. So this makes your whole kit increase another 12 ounces in weight.
Carrying around these lenses results in bigger & heavier bags - which can be a burden if on vacation. Alot of people use the Canon F4 when they want to "travel light" and that makes alot of sense to me. Then, when they want to get serious they pull out the F2.8 bazooka!!!
I just don't consider the F2.8 and F4 variants as interchangable equals. The range is the same, but everything else after that is different. I know it's expensive, but if you can justify having both, that's the best way to go. The Sigma is a very, very good lens and I would rather have it and the Canon F4 instead of the Canon F2.8 version (comes out to about the same money).
I used to own the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and sold it to another FM'er here so I could but a Canon 70-200 f/4 in its place. The Sigma was one of my favorite lenses and gave me great images even wide open. But, for me, it all came down to the weight issue. I found myself too many times leaving the Sigma behind because of its weight when I was hiking, etc. and I really missed not having the 70-200 range with me on my treks. So I decided to go with the Canon and have not regretted it one bit. I would say that those two lenses are identical in sharpness (at least my copies) and if I ever found myself needing to go back to f/2.8, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to buy another Sigma (unless I needed IS - then I'd cough up the big bucks for the Canon 2.8 IS version).
The lens build seems great, very solid, and the black finish is great. The zoom ring is so tight yet smooth is screams quality. 
.