Canon or Sigma?

[DVC Jen]

I am seriously eyeing the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens - but the price is really making me cringe.

The Sigma version of this lens is several hundred dollars cheaper.

Does anyone know if the Canon lens is really that much better?

[We-Luv-Disney]

I have never owned the Sigma, but had the Canon for a while. Is it worth the $? If you get a good sharp copy (which mine was not) its a great lens. I personally think that the Canon 70-200 F4 IS is the best Lens in that range made for the Canon mount. But if you really need the 2.8, than go for the Canon.

[Master Mason]

The canon is definately better, is it almost twice as good as the price would indicate, no it is not.

You need to decide if you would be happy with a sigma vs a canon, I know myself enough to know that the answer would be no, I would always want the canon, so eventually I would have to spend twice if I bought the sigma.

It is a fantasic lens in the canon mount, which is the only one I have personal experience with, but I have read good things about the sigma as well.

[deletedpenguin]

If money was no object, I would always buy Canon. However, as Master Mason says, the quality isn't always twice as good when you pay twice as much for the same focal length/aperture size. So...gotta weigh your options and do research. I've got a few really sharp Sigma lenses, but it can be a roll of the dice either way.

[DVC Jen]

Well that clears it up. NOT! :lmao:

I have the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 and use it alot - have been happy with it so far. The reason I want the f/2.8 over the f/4 is for dance recitals and competitions. Just like with sports - that faster lens is important. I am just not sure I could convince the hubster to shell out the $$ for the Canon lens - but I am pretty sure he wouldn't grumble too much about the Sigma version.

However - if it is not near the same quality - what is the point. Ya know?

[deletedpenguin]

Frustrating, isn't it. :)

[gruZ]

I've had the Sigma version for just over a year (the 70-200 2.8), and it is an outstanding lens. Wide open it's very sharp, focus is fast and quiet, and build quality is also very very good. Can't compare to the Canon version, but it's been a great lens for me.

Here's one review (http://www.naturephotographers.net/mg0600-1.html).

Here's a more thorough review (http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28/index.htm).

[MICKEY88]

the tokina ATX pro, 80-200 2.8 is a really nice lens, I read a lot of great reviews before buying mine on ebay,,

the actual minolta lens runs 1500-2000 I bought my tokina for 350, I have since seen them go for a bit more, supposedly new they sold for 1000+

the ATX Pro has a gold ring around it, TOkina made another version with a red ring..the reviews weren't quite as good on that one..

[DVC Jen]

Thanks. :thumbsup2 This just may take the place of my "big white lens" but I guess I could always spray paint it white. Right? ;)

[Groucho]

I've read a lot of good things about the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 - it's certainly no slacker.

Tamron's been promising their own 70-200mm F2.8 for a few years now but no release - lots of folks are anxious to see how it turns out, considering how well-respected their 28-75mm F2.8 is.

[MarkBarbieri]

I've got the Canon version with IS. It's easily my favorite lens. I can't compare it to with the Sigma though. My guess is that the Sigma is a better value if you don't need IS and you aren't worried about resale. It might not be quite as good as the Canon, but I bet it's pretty darn close.

One small word of caution with big investment third party lenses is that they are sometimes not compatible with later camera releases. You can get them rechipped, but that's a hassle and they usually only do it for free once. I can't say that I've ever heard of someone being totally left in the cold by having an incompatible 3rd party lens, but it's one other thing to consider.

The "white" lens thing is nice here in Texas from a heat standpoint, but it draws more attention than I'd like. It would be hard to use a lens that large without drawing attention, but the white ones make the problem even worse.

[AndrewWG]

What I noticed the most about having the white lens out in WDW was that as soon as I put it on the camera, someone would ask me to take their photo fo rthem with their camera! As if I wasn't having a hard enough time taking my own photos, they wanted me to take photos of them in front of the castle, etc. I always did it for them, but I also let them in on the secret that the photopass people will do it for them too. :ssst: I think I took photos of about 8 couples and one family while I was there! :lmao: Not one of them had the same camera so I got to use many different p&s cameras on this trip!

[DVC Jen]

Mark I agree about the white lens thing. And in all honesty - it is all in my head and the thought or appearance of knowing what you are doing if you have that "big white lens". The lens is not going to make me a better photographer - only I can do that.

Now - onto a good note. I found the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 on clearance online with Ritz camera. I am enrolled with NYIP and get a 7% discount with Ritz so with the discount - no sales tax and no shipping due to it being over 100.00 - I can get the lens for 604.00!!!!!

I don't care if it is purple with fushia and lime green polka dots. That is a huge bargain.

I just really hope this deal hangs around until the 7th. That is the soonest I can order it. (and since the 6th is our 21st wedding anniversary the hubster doesn't need to concern himself with shopping for my gift ;) - I will handle that for him. Am I sweet, kind, loving and considerate - or what? :thumbsup2 :lmao: :rotfl2: )

And at that price if it doesn't work with an upgraded camera - not that I plan on getting another anytime soon considering I have gotten two in less than a year - I will feel as if I more than got my moneys worth out of a 600.00 lens.

Cross your fingers for me that the lens is available at that price for another week.

[Mister Skellington]

I have owned both the Sigma 70-300 DG Macro and the Canon 70-300 IS.
I will say that for the money the 70-300 DG Macro is a heck of a fine lens and having the Macro is ALOT of fun. I lost that lens over a cliff while hiking (it ended up in a very fast whitewater rapid) I replaced it with the Canon and while the lens is better in low light with the IS the picture quality was very comparible with the Canon having a slight edge. The Sigma was considerably cheaper and came with a hood and a very nice case. Which were it not for the water may have saved my lens. The 70-150 range was very close in quality but the difference showed up in the 150-300 range.
If I had it to do over I may well go with the Sigma again....mainly because the Canon was twice the price while not having twice the quality IMO
Then again...I am also looking at a white lens to replace so...take it with a grain of salt :confused3

[MarkBarbieri]

What I noticed the most about having the white lens out in WDW was that as soon as I put it on the camera, someone would ask me to take their photo fo rthem with their camera! As if I wasn't having a hard enough time taking my own photos, they wanted me to take photos of them in front of the castle, etc. I always did it for them, but I also let them in on the secret that the photopass people will do it for them too. :ssst: I think I took photos of about 8 couples and one family while I was there! :lmao: Not one of them had the same camera so I got to use many different p&s cameras on this trip!

That used to happen to me a lot. For some reason on my last WDW trip, no one asked me to take their picture. I suspect that it may have had something to do with my being looking like a lunatic covered in camera parts. With one big camera and lens, you look like a skilled photographer. With a body covered in gear, you just look scary.

[MarkBarbieri]

Mark I agree about the white lens thing. And in all honesty - it is all in my head and the thought or appearance of knowing what you are doing if you have that "big white lens". The lens is not going to make me a better photographer - only I can do that.

Yes and no. A better lens won't make you a better photographer, but it will allow you to take shots that you otherwise couldn't have taken. I am the living proof that a really mediocre shooter can buy his way to better photos.

If you haven't held one, be prepared for it to be a rather large lens. In fact, there are people that believe that it is too large to hang from your camera unsupported. They recommend that you attach a lens cradle to it to relieve strain on your lens mount. Very few people recommend that you lug one around WDW. I'm one of the few that thinks it's a great idea. I love the combination of reach and speed. It's working distance makes it great for candid portraits.

[Master Mason]

That used to happen to me a lot. For some reason on my last WDW trip, no one asked me to take their picture. I suspect that it may have had something to do with my being looking like a lunatic covered in camera parts. With one big camera and lens, you look like a skilled photographer. With a body covered in gear, you just look scary.


Mark the camera bomber...

[DVC Jen]

Yes and no. A better lens won't make you a better photographer, but it will allow you to take shots that you otherwise couldn't have taken. I am the living proof that a really mediocre shooter can buy his way to better photos.

If you haven't held one, be prepared for it to be a rather large lens. In fact, there are people that believe that it is too large to hang from your camera unsupported. They recommend that you attach a lens cradle to it to relieve strain on your lens mount. Very few people recommend that you lug one around WDW. I'm one of the few that thinks it's a great idea. I love the combination of reach and speed. It's working distance makes it great for candid portraits.

The weight of it will surprise me I am sure. I am not positive I will use it alot at WDW - but knowing I have it if I want to is nice. I couldn't even deal with my 30D and the Canon 28-135 IS hanging around my neck. I had to hold the lens part in the palm of my hand during the entire trip. So I would definately be doing that with this lens.

I have a Quantaray 70-300mm f/4 and have used it quite a bit - but for those dance recitals and competitions (youngest DD is now on 4 competition dance teams and is also taking dance as her PE class at school - and joining the dance gallery - the performing group at her high school) that are coming up again in a few months it is just not as fast as I want. That I why I thought the 70-200 f2.8 would be good.

[orchjoe]

Mark the camera bomber...

:lmao: :rotfl2: ... I actually laughed out loud on that one.

[MICKEY88]

That used to happen to me a lot. For some reason on my last WDW trip, no one asked me to take their picture. I suspect that it may have had something to do with my being looking like a lunatic covered in camera parts. With one big camera and lens, you look like a skilled photographer. With a body covered in gear, you just look scary.

you might be right, with that harness setup, you look like ROBO-Photographer:thumbsup2

[jann1033]

i'm not sure mark, but i think it might have been the somewhat uncast-member- like shorts you had on in the photo someone posted here rather than the photo gear or at least a combination of the 2 :rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

[jann1033]

... I am not positive I will use it alot at WDW - but knowing I have it if I want to is nice. I couldn't even deal with my 30D and the Canon 28-135 IS hanging around my neck. I had to hold the lens part in the palm of my hand during the entire trip. So I would definately be doing that with this lens.

....
i really think i got carpel tunnel from holding my 70-200 f4/rebel and that is lots lighter than the f2.8/30d so i'd sink the $40 into the lens cradle. there is a pro sigma line that is supposed to be better but not sure if that lens is one or not...
so far the third party lines have seemed like they've improved.. i was pleasantly surprised at the build of the tamron teleconverter i got , same white metal (?)as the canon lens and the tokina i got is great build as well...either i am researching better or they are building better( guessing option 1 with a little option b)

[Groucho]

Supposedly the lens is white because Canon uses fluorite in their "L" lenses which others generally don't do, and it's more heat-sensitive. Why? Who knows. Certainly other companies make lenses as good or better without heat sensitivity issues.

Now, I suspect that when it comes to why their big lenses are white, 10% of it is to control heat, and 90% of it is marketing. After all, their "pro" lenses are supposed to be very distinct from their more plebian lenses than the hoi polloi use. Making many of them white only furthers the distinction, making "L" lenses an aspiration item for Canon shooters. Getting your first white lens is like a coming-of-age for you poor people who chase that elusive 12th letter of the alphabet. :teeth:

[deletedpenguin]

I've heard the same about the heat issue. In theory, it makes sense, but if heat affected sharpness that much, wouldn't every manufacturer make their lenses white? I too, think it's a marketing tactic.

With that said, I do love the looks you get with a big white lens. People tend to take extra special care not to step in front of the "professional photographer". :)

[Master Mason]

Supposedly the lens is white because Canon uses fluorite in their "L" lenses which others generally don't do, and it's more heat-sensitive. Why? Who knows. Certainly other companies make lenses as good or better without heat sensitivity issues.

Now, I suspect that when it comes to why their big lenses are white, 10% of it is to control heat, and 90% of it is marketing. After all, their "pro" lenses are supposed to be very distinct from their more plebian lenses than the hoi polloi use. Making many of them white only furthers the distinction, making "L" lenses an aspiration item for Canon shooters. Getting your first white lens is like a coming-of-age for you poor people who chase that elusive 12th letter of the alphabet. :teeth:


Hey now, pentax makes a few "whiteish" lenses as well, I think they are more tan than white, but certainly not black.

[Groucho]

I think that the only non-black lenses from anyone but Canon are quite large and unique ones and not ones that are essentially duplicate focal length of cheaper lenses but with higher quality and faster. (Ie, nobody else makes their 70-200mm in anything but black.) Heck, Canon even paints their 1.4x multiplier white! How much heat can that little thing absorb? :)

Pentax did make a silver 300mm F4.5 in the '90s, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I think their 600mm or so was silver as well. I may end up with a silver 31mm F1.8, but that's not painted, it's bare aluminum, and you can also get it painted black - that is definitely a style choice. :teeth:

I think that Nikon had a couple fast long primes in gray, but I don't remember any details - and I can't remember ever seeing any such lenses from Minolta, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Mamiya, etc, etc, though I'm certainly not an authority of those companies or their lens histories.

[Anewman]

I think that the only non-black lenses from anyone but Canon are quite large and unique ones and not ones that are essentially duplicate focal length of cheaper lenses but with higher quality and faster. (Ie, nobody else makes their 70-200mm in anything but black.) Heck, Canon even paints their 1.4x multiplier white! How much heat can that little thing absorb? :)

Pentax did make a silver 300mm F4.5 in the '90s, I can't think of any others off the top of my head but I think their 600mm or so was silver as well. I may end up with a silver 31mm F1.8, but that's not painted, it's bare aluminum, and you can also get it painted black - that is definitely a style choice. :teeth:

I think that Nikon had a couple fast long primes in gray, but I don't remember any details - and I can't remember ever seeing any such lenses from Minolta, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, Mamiya, etc, etc, though I'm certainly not an authority of those companies or their lens histories.



http://www.dyxum.com/images/lenses/77/77_2.jpg

http://www.dyxum.com/images/lenses/59/59_1.jpg

[deletedpenguin]

^^ That's a 80-200, not 70-200. :banana: ;)