I am looking to buy a zoom lens (as an all purpose lens) for my 20d and I narrowed it down to two options; the Canon 70-200 f/4L and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. I have read the reviews of the two as well as the posts on this forum but I still can not make up my mind. My knowledge of photography, I have to admit, is a bit limited (which I find makes the decision harder), I guess what I am trying to say is; should I get the Sigma to get the f/2.8? or is the Sigma a worse lens in terms of image quality (sharpness)? If not then is there any reason not to get the Sigma?
Right now I am actually leaning towards getting the Canon, mainly because I gotten the impression that the Canon is a slightly sharper lens and that I could probably get along fine without the f/2.8.
Canon:
Lightweight (for this type of lens)
White
"L" status
Tripod mount not included, and rather expensive
Sig:
Faster (2.8) glass
Works with (less expensive) SIg TC and retains auto focus
Heavy (might not want to carry it around all day!)
Excellent build quality
Includes TMount and hood
If you shoot mostly outdoors, the L should be excellent. If you find yourself needing to shoot indoor sports or events in low llight, consider the Sig.
Both are great lenses. Canon is slightly cheaper (I found the Sig for $650, but again, if you purchase the Canon and the Tripod mount for the Canon separatly, it's about the same $$$)
I posted this same question over on DP Review a few hours ago. Check here:
I went through the same process and decided to get the Sigma (mainly because I was very happy with their 12-24 and 24-70). It's heavy but that is an advantage in hand-holding it. I use 20D with the battery grip and the whole is very nicely weighted. It works fine with the Sigma 1.4x TC.
Maybe the Canon focuses faster and is probably sharper at f4 and 200mm. The Sigma is a little soft at f2.8 and 200mm.
Thank you for all your replys.It is definately not going to be an easy decision to make for sure - now I am actually leaning towards the Sigma (but who knows I might change my mind again). Either way, despite which one I choose, it seems like I am going to end up with a really nice lens.
I have the Canon 70-200F4 it is a excellent lens if you don't need 2.8 also keep in mind unless you are keeping the lens forever the Canon L lens has better resale value.
Edited by Arthur Pelham on Jan 17, 2005 at 01:45 PM GMT
I too have had this choice but went for the sigma because it if a faster lens and I want to shoot indoor sports. the weight is not an issue. the canon f2.8 is heavy too (actually it's not that bad on the 20D) plus I will be using a monopod with it. the sigma is good build quality but not as good as the canon. if you like to take care of your equipment then it's not going to be problem. I read a lot of reviews and tried the lenses before I choose the sigma.
I bought the Sigma 70-200 and have been thrilled with it. I find it to be very sharp, and I use the 2.8 quite often as it can really knock out a distracting background.
Here is my input in the form of a few shots with the 70-200 4L on the 20D. I don't think I'll ever part with this lens. For more speed I would likely add the 135 2L or 85 1.2L at some point.
Wow, mfoto, nice shots. They show why I kept the 70-200/4 even after I bought a 2.8.
I originally got the 70-200/4 and really liked it a lot, but needed faster glass with a 1.4tc so I broke down and got the 70-200/2.8 (non-IS). I use the 2.8 when I need the faster glass, but I prefer the f/4 otherwise. It is sharper, lighter, just feels right. I don't think you can go wrong with the f/4. And you can always sell it it you find out you must have 2.8.
