Canon 70-200L f/2.8 (non IS) vs Sigma APO HSM 70-200 f/2.8

[kcky]

Hi,
I'm thinking of getting either of these 2 lens but was wondering how comparble are they in terms optically, focusing speed, etc.
The main difference between them is of course, the price.
Would like to seek the opinions of all users of both lens out there before I purchase one.
Appreciate for any comments.

 

[oeyvind]

get the one from Canon...

 

[clive]

take the white one. dont buy brand new..too expensive. wait for 2nd hand offer. check it thru...then u will never regret 4 the rest of ur life

 

[jimtong]

if you can afford the canon one, get it.

 

[centrino]

any reason all recommended canon one?
i have used black sigma before, it's very sharp, and much cheaper. With HSM, it's fast too. Just find the minimum focusing distance is not short enough, not sure about canon's...

just base on quality and usage of the lens, wat's the difference between the two?

 

[clive]

any reason all recommended canon one?

it just happens that the people who posted b4 u, all happen to think alike :bsmilie:

 

[stech]

Don't let the brand affect you... only those; (i am saying all) brand minded people then think in that way. Of course, I must agree that Canon L is quality optical, but not forgetting, there are a lot of good photographers out there, don't use Canon L, yet produce excellent pictures. And in the old days, where Canon L are expensive, and photographers fall short to the 3rd party lenses, are we saying that they didn't produce excellent pictures?

As it's always said... it is the man behind the lens. If one is bad, give a 1200mm f/5.6L, also is going to be useless tube.

 

[kcky]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for the reply so far...i guess my main concern is whether the sigma is optically and built similarily to the canon. :what:

 

[jimtong]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for the reply so far...i guess my main concern is whether the sigma is optically and built similarily to the canon. :what:

If you want more sample from sigma lens check it out.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/70-200_28_ex_apo

Hope it helps you in your decision making.

Some ppl are hardcore Canon fan and I do admit I am one of them. So if given a choice I will go for canon of cos... that does not mean Sigma no good. The lens has a very constant good review from the internet.

Another factor is price. For F2.8 Canon version you pay almost double of what you pay for Sigma.

 

[stech]

In that case, why don't you go down to CP, AP, or MS, with your camera and test out the lenses yourself, and evaluate the lenses optical yourself, since diff people give diff opinion.

To be very frank with you... some of us are bias over the lenses brands.

Hi everyone,
Thanks for the reply so far...i guess my main concern is whether the sigma is optically and built similarily to the canon. :what:

 

[jimtong]

In that case, why don't you go down to CP, AP, or MS, with your camera and test out the lenses yourself, and evaluate the lenses optical yourself, since diff people give diff opinion.

To be very frank with you... some of us are bias over the lenses brands.

I think CP dun carry Sigma Lens

 

[stech]

Yes, you are right.. but one can always test the Canon lenses, if MS doesn't has stock, or if AP doesn't really friendly about the testing of lenses thingy.

I think CP dun carry Sigma Lens

 

[laugh]

I think AF wise, HSM loses by a wee bit to USM. Colour rendition wise, the sigma offers a little warmer tone, and the canon more natural. But there is nothing photoshop cant alter.

Only you can decide lah, if you are the kind who constantly think of owning a L lens, you will never be satisfied with the sigma and no one can blame you. If you are on a budget, the sigma is a pretty good lens.

 

[mpenza]

both Sigma and Canon 70-200 f/2.8 are pretty good lenses. Actually, Tamron and Tokina equivalents are very good optically too but they focussed slower than Sigma HSM and Canon USM.

Another alternative is the Canon 70-200 F4L which is one stop slower. It's very much lighter though.

 

[Denosha]

Well. I can't comment on L lenses 'cos i've never had one (i have never even bought an orig canon lens before) but so far the Sigma 70-200 EX seems very worth the $$$. Optically very good (don't think you can tell the diff from L lenses unless u print like really big or u like to view ur pics at 100% view all the time), AF is almost as fast as USM from what I've heard. Built like a tank. No regrets!

Anyway, you can get a grey set from TCW at about $1250 (about $100 or so less than the orig one). They will give you a 1 year warranty from them.

 

[sequitur]

several factors to go for the canon

1. usm is faster than hsm. it's proven.

2. sigma has some QC duds around there so you -may- get a problem copy.

3. in case you kena "2", i.e. obtain a problem copy, sigma service centre will come up with weird reasons to not service your lens. esp. if you're using a 10D. (they got this standard reply to 10D users - there's nothing wrong with the lens, your camera backfocuses.)

4. canon QC is better. their service is better. L lenses can be calibrated too so you can actually bring yours into canon and ask for so and so calibration.


for me, after using other brand lenses, i find they still fall short of canon's quality. buying a canon lens for me (over a third party) is sort of like an assurance to myself that the lens i get will immediately be working nicely out of the box - and if it doesn't i'm sure i can bring it down to canon service and it'll come back in 3 days working nicely.

but then again, try out everything for yourself. your mileage may vary. some people swear by 3rd party stuff.

 

[tomshen]

Get the black one, and impress others with your photos. Really, the Sigma is good enough to shock your pants off.

Eventually, u might convert to Canon, not becaue your decision was wrong but your desire was higher. Till then, you would be happy again.

 

[ST1100]

i do not think there is a significant difference in image quality between the two lenses, nor is the focussing speed difference of any practical significance. Then again, if you factor in resale value, they are pretty much the same price. Either way, if you buy used and sell, you lose about $0-$400, depending on how hard you whack the lens.

Practically, it comes down to whether you like black or white, and whether you feel affected in anyway (either positive or negative) about using 3rd party stuff.

The real difference would be between the 70-200IS and the Sigma.

 

[goering]

i do not think there is a significant difference in image quality between the two lenses ....

Do you know if there is any significant difference between their wide open performance? I'm not too sure about this particular Sigma, but many of the 3rd party constant f2.8 zoom lenses are not comparable to the Canon wide open

In this case, if the Sigma is not comparable to the Canon wide open, I'd rather get the Canon 70-200 F4

 

[szekiat]

err... the built of the canon is way better. I have seen some sigmas used for a few months and the EX coating is half worn. It takes a bit more to scratch the white paint. If surface wear matters to u then take this into account.