Sigma vs Canon Question

CrotchKiller

CrotchKiller

Active member
I know everyone on here raves about canon L glass and what not but i have a couple questions.

I currently own a sigma 70-200 2.8.I reall enjoy the lens but I'm wondering weather it would be a good idea to sell it and buy canon 70-200 f4. I'm even considering a canon 70-200 2.8, depending on the difference in optics.

I guess what im really asking is who has used both the sigma and canon 70-200's and how big of a difference in optics is there.

Thanks for any help guys
 
well i cant help you decide on the switch. i dont think many people on here own the canon 70-200 f/2.8 mainly because its out of their price range. I have talked to someone that has shot with it and this is what they said 'its really nice and definitely has its pros to the f/4 but in my book i really isnt worth the extra 700 bucks unless your really shooting in low light conditions often" if money is not an issue, go for it, but im agreeing with him and i dont really think it would be worth it.
 
I JUST picked up a 70-200 2.8 IS, I was debating to get that or the sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. I went with the canon because sigmas are usually hit or miss, and I didn't want to drop so much money on a lens that wasn't going to perform up to its value
 
damn, I came in here to post that you got one and he should talk to you. hahahaahha, but how much is the sigma?
 
Never used the Sigma, but from what I've heard its not far off from the Canon assuming you get a good one. The only concern with Sigma is their QC isn't up to par.

Also, Canon lenses are way overpriced in my opinion. None of their $1k+ lenses have the quality to justify the price to me.
 
Sigma is 1399 retail, goes for 1200ish right now used because so many people got a 949 deal on it and are selling them all off brand new in box.

I got my canon for 1475, pricey, but worth it for a lens I know performs well (and is big and white :P )
 
this is gonna sound like a really dumb thing to say but how do i know if i got a good one? haha. Will the optics be so far of that it is noticeable? I'm just not sure how sharp the lens is supposed to be. What do i use a comparison. Know what i mean?
 
you can usually tell if you have a good or bad copy just based on crops of your images. if they are softer than you think they should be then chances are you have a not so great version. But if they work for you, you're fine
 
there are loads of this exact thread on most photo forums...why not do some research elsewhere
 
Alright. They seem a little soft. I mean i really dont need the extra stops, and i could pick up a canon f4 and have some money left over. I think ill do that
 
If you don't need as fast, get the f/4 IS. I hear it's well worth the extra money if it's in your budget.
 
One of the reasons the f4 is so cheap is because it is the only one of the 4 versions that is NOT weather and dust resistant. something to think about when it comes to where you are going to be shooting most of the time.
I've used the f4 and the f2.8 IS and they were both nice, opposite ends of the spectrum but both still great lenses. However I hear the best option for both money and versatility is the f2.8 non IS.
 
i think i remember from my intense research a while back that the canon 70-200 is unbeatable in terms of value and quality,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top