I'm looking at the following for my 400D:
Canon 70-200mm F/4L - $810AU
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO DG MACRO HSM - ~$1000AU
Just looking for general opinions as to what I should go for, the little bit of research I've done has confused me. I am somewhat of a beginner, so the lense would be a "general purpose" type thing.
Should I be concerned about the chances of getting backfocusing issues with the Canon lense?
Is the quality margin between the Sigma and the Canon lense that large?
Basically only considering the Sigma because my father works at a company which imports Sigma gear so I may be able to get it cheaper. The camera guy there told my father you would only notice the difference between a Canon and a Sigma if you blew the images up to billboard size. I'm not sure if that's true or not, but if so then it would make sense to get the cheaper lense as none of my pictures will occupy any billboards anytime soon.
Any advice would be appreciated :) Hoping to have the lense by thursday for my mates snowboarding demo.
If you shoot mostly in low light - ie indoors - get the Sigma. It will probably make you happier as it is slightly more versatile.
On the other hand, if you want sharpness, and you shoot outdoors (aka, mostly above f/5.6), in situations where 200mm is long enough, the f/4 should do ya.
I believe that where optics are concerned, the 70-200 is easily a match for the Sigma. Where low light is concerned, f/2.8 can be pretty important.
I shoot the 80-200 f/2.8L and I use it wide open a lot. Were this not the case, I'm sure I'd be happy with either of your listed choices.
I recently bought the Sigma lens, 2nd hand from Ebay. Yes, it's the newer Macro version. I'm not sure yet if I have a bad copy. This lens gets very good reviews, but I'm not totally happy with it. I'm not sure if I'm being super critical, or if I have a bad one. I'm waiting for someone else to get one, so I can see some test shots to compare. Prior to my purchase, the new Macro version wasn't listed on DPC, so I'm the only registered user of this lens. I think there are probably others around, but they chose the non-macro version in their profiles.
This lens is certainly very nice to use. Fast autofocus, very smooth and quiet. It's heavy, but I haven't found that to be a problem yet. IS would be really really nice, but that's waaay out of my price range.
Under the right conditions, it takes beautiful photos, but I can also easily get mine to take shockingly useless photos under very specific conditions. However, I still haven't had another of the same lens to compare to.
If you do get the Sigma, I'm sure you'll be happy as everyone else is with it, and if you do get it, get in touch, so I can give you some specific test shots to compare to mine, so I can show Sigma that yours works, and get them to fix mine. :)
(Edit - I talked to nickp37, and he seems to have the same issues with the Sigma as I do)
They are both good, but right now I'm considering selling both for a Canon 2.8 IS. The f/4 was my first L series and I still love the lens. I mostly shoot sports, and I got the sigma for indoor sports. Together they are ok, but I wouldn't use the sigma for outdoor sports in contrasty light due to slow (compared to the canon) focus, less accurate colors (personal preference), and that it isn't as sharp as the canon, and I wouldn't use the canon in low light.
They both are very good. The Sigma is a great choice if you need 2.8 and can't afford the Canon 2.8. If you don't need 2.8, however, I would whole-heartedly endorse the f/4.
Your profile says planet Earth, which I'm guess is probably somewhere in the US. Note the AU after the prices he's listed. One AU is worth about .82 beans. The prices he's given are actually about 20% below most Australian retail prices, so if it's a local source, his prices are actually very good on both those lenses compared to retail. :)
I'd have to agree with Hopper here-- having used the 70-200 F/4L -- I almost always found I was using it @200.. And sometimes wishing I had the 2.8 option vs F4.
Optically the prime 200 is said to be about as sharp as any lens on the market, and its pretty damn cheap when comparing the other 70-200 options--
I have f/2.8 that I often use in lower light. I've shot 1/125, but the hit rate is pretty low (less than one in six even when I'm being careful). Best to shoot up near 1/320 IMHO. That's pretty fast. If you are being careful and you have IS, you can get away with a LOT.
I know this thread is pretty much dead, but I feel I need to make an update/correction.
I did experiance problems with the Sigma 70-200, but I may have been a bit unfair. I've been using the sigma more lately, and I'm getting to like it! The colors are different, but since I shoot raw, that's not really much of an issue. Most of the problems I encountered came from two issues; using the sigma with a tamron 1.4TC (as opposed to the canon with the same TC), and possible (likely) miscalibration.
I recently got the 1DMK111 which has AF microajustment. After making a +18 adjustment for the sigma lens, the focus is awesome! I imagine if I had sent the lens for recalibration, it would have solved that issue with other bodies. I am noticing a slight vignetting at 200/2.8, but it's not too bad on a 1.3x crop sensor, and probably wouldn't even show up on a 1.6x.
Overall, I'd adjust my original opinion to recommend the Sigma, but be aware of the possible need to get the lens calibrated.
Originally posted by nickp37:
I have both lenses.
They are both good, but right now I'm considering selling both for a Canon 2.8 IS. The f/4 was my first L series and I still love the lens. I mostly shoot sports, and I got the sigma for indoor sports. Together they are ok, but I wouldn't use the sigma for outdoor sports in contrasty light due to slow (compared to the canon) focus, less accurate colors (personal preference), and that it isn't as sharp as the canon, and I wouldn't use the canon in low light.
They both are very good. The Sigma is a great choice if you need 2.8 and can't afford the Canon 2.8. If you don't need 2.8, however, I would whole-heartedly endorse the f/4.
Primes aren't for everyone, but you can't go wrong with this lens.
Non-Canon lenses are usually slower to focus, and will hunt a bit more than a Canon lens (or a Nikon lens on a Nikon body)
ya, i use the 70-200 f/4 and find that i am always in 200. i am really rethinking going down to the 200 fixed, but i will probly get go for the 100-400. give that a thought, its bout 2wice the cash, but you get all the ranges that you could possibly need. just my 2 cents(:
