Canon 70-200 f4L vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS

[Rexxar]

I'm looking at selling my Canon 70-200 f 4 L (Non-IS) , and replacing it with the Sigma 70-200 f 2.8

Has anyone had both (or similar comparing apertures) ? Weighing up whether the lower aperture is worth it , or if i'd be better off going for a longer non-stabilized lens (As often shoot from tripod) Wanting something that's decent when going to wildlife parks or zoos as well as wildlife photography when out and about...

What say the photographers of OCUK?

 

[GMac11]

I'm looking at selling my Canon 70-200 f 4 L (Non-IS) , and replacing it with the Sigma 70-200 f 2.8

Has anyone had both (or similar comparing apertures) ? Weighing up whether the lower aperture is worth it , or if i'd be better off going for a longer non-stabilized lens (As often shoot from tripod) Wanting something that's decent when going to wildlife parks or zoos as well as wildlife photography when out and about...

What say the photographers of OCUK?

All I can do is offer my 2 cents. I have owned both these lenses (however I had the stabilised Sigma version). When I was still shooting Canon the 70-200 was the sharpest lens I had ever used, it was superb and the colours/contrast were excellent. If I was you I would stick with the Canon and here's why:

• If you're shooting wildlife your shutter speed will be quite high anyway so the IS will be negated - pretty much anything above 1/500s I would say
• The Canon in significantly smaller and lighter than the Sigma. Do not underestimate how large these full frame 70-200 f2.8 lenses are. For walkabouts and zoo visits I would not want to be lugging a 2.8 around with me
• The Canon will be sharper, no questions
• I would expect the auto focus in the Canon to be much better too, which, when shooting wildlife is a must.

The only advantage the Sigma has over the Canon is that extra stop of aperture which would equate to double the shutter speed which MAY help in lower light situations but that won't be all that often I'd suspect.

If these are your choices I am assuming you have a budget of some sort? I moved to Fujifilm a couple of years ago so I'm not familiar with the current market but I would search for the IS version of the Canon lens you have - that's what I did and would wholly recommend that over any third party f2.8 lens. I had a very quick look on MPB and see a copy for £354. I paid £440 for mine (around 6 years ago) and thought it was a steal then. Anything around £400 for that lens would be a decent deal.

**EDIT** Apologies I completely overlooked one of your questions. If you wanted something longer (particularly on a budget) I would give consideration to the Canon 70-300 L IS which is another superb lens (that I owned). It's very well built and still not as big nor heavy as a 70-200 2.8, it will be a little ( and I mean little) less sharp than the Canon 70-200 if you're pixel peeping but it is a great value lens if you can find it for the right price. Or finally you could add a 1.4x TC to the Canon 70-200 which is a great combo.

 

[Rexxar]

@GMac11 Appreciate that write up , Keeping the f4 L non-IS and getting a 1.4x tc might be a good shout, and cheaper too. I'll experiment bumping the ISO up a bit and see if that changes my mind at all... Hadn't even thought of weight , Shooting with an 80D which seems good enough for my needs at the moment.

 

[WoZZeR]

I have the F4L non IS which was bought way before the price hikes of recent years and I still use it every week. The light weight is amazing, I often stick on my very first DSLR (350D) which is also very light and it makes a very portable combo, it works well on my 5DI and II as well. I have used it with the 1.4 converter and it doesn't lose very much image quality at all. The light weight also means you can shoot one handed easily when parting branches etc. You can shorten the minimum focusing distance with the 500D Close Up Filter Canon sell, pricey but great for larger insects like Butterflies, Dragonflies etc.

 

[Tysonator]

This my 2 cents worth,..lol
I have used 70-200L f4 mki, nice lens and very good and a very reliable performance.

I own the 70-300L IS USM, and it is my 2nd sharpest lens after my 100mm macro L IS USM which is razer sharp !
Many years ago I chatted to a Canon tech rep in jessops and he told me the 70-300L is as sharp as tge 70-200 f4.
Ibwouod say he is right from the images I have from both lenses. The f4 is big advantage of my 70-300 variable Aperture in low light, and owning the 70-300L is my go to lens for any thing sport, wildlife, Airshows, motorsports, and even portrait !
I also own a sigma 150-600mm contemporary which looks like a RPG round !
It is good, but a beast to carry around and is not as sharp as my 70-300L
The 70-300L can be had at a reasonable price used and I will never sell my one either I ever switched to Sony.
I will just use my mc-11 adapter

 

[SebC]

Another vote for the Canon, superb lens, super sharp, reliable, and built like a tank, the sharpest 70-200mm lens canon have ever made. I have had aftermarket lenses before and although on their own they can be great, I find the OE lenses just tend to work with the camera bodies better, AF always seems to be better and more predictable.

Here is a Tern in Iceland taken with a 70-200mm F4 with a 1.4x extender and an old Canon 7D Mk1 I just know that this would have been an issue with another lens (note this image is very compressed, I have printed this at 24"x36" and its mega sharp)

If anyone looking at this thread is considering the 70-200mm F4 for landscape I would highly recommend it, have a look at my site at scoellphotography.co.uk if you wanted to see some examples of what the lens can do