Hmm 70-200 f4 L or Sigma 70-200 2.8

mrk

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
104,020
Location
South Coast
Just a quick one really, can someone who has both or someone who has one of either post their views? hates? likes? etc.

The sigma is just over £100 more expensive and has 2.8 but whether the 2.8 is sharp from 70-200 is another matter whereas I know the L is sharp at f4 at all zooms but obviously slower because ...well only f4 :/

Will be ordering one or the other along with a 17-40L (with a uv to keep the dust maggots out!!) this month sometime ¬_¬

Taa!
 
That was what I was saying to myself but I cannot find any decent samples online of the sigma at 2.8 from both 70mm and 200mm because if it's not as sharp at below f4 then it makes the £100 price boost not as meaningful - I'd also have to get a new lens cap (a centre pinch one since the sigma one falls off with a small tap apparently!) too.

Btw, using both systems isn't too difficult :p I thought it would be very hard to get used to one or the other after using Canon for so long but they are both just as logical as the other where one is better the other is worse etc, I feel more control with the "N" though but as you may remember I always wanted to go full frame one day and only canon have that so I'm trying to get the glass sorted out then cheap body then full frame so the cheap body can be set as backup if everything works out how I'm planning.. :o
 
I have no trouble shooting at smaller than f4 in low light (shot the abba lookalikes concert thing in portsmouth at night with sigma 18-200 at f5+ 1/50 and got many keepers, the 2.8 would give *** upper hand though as you could use lower iso instead of 800/1600...think its gonna be the f4 though, everything so far suggests f4 :)
 
if it's substantially worse at 200mm wither wider AV though wouldn't that be a problem? They say at medium aperture settings and the usual medium is 5.6~ whereas the f4L is sharp at f4 at all lengths.

Hmm..

Also the 70-200 f4 comes with a hood too :p

I should be using it on a 30D providing they are in stockfrom where I'm buying it all so high iso usage even up to 3200 isn't an issue in the slightest I guess.

ANyone got any 100% crops of real world scenarios on the sigma? !
 
I guess that's the canon one?

I could always get the sigma first and see if I like it, 16day returns policy standing of course and if I do then just be happy with it I guess
 
At f4 would you say then that the bokeh on both lenses at the same focal length is very similar? from what I have seen so far the f4L has nicer bokeh which is more pleasing to the eye but I havent seen the same shot with the sigma though so cant comment on what that one is like
 
nolimit said:
do you really need 70-200?

I take it that you have nikon 80-200 AFD/AFS?

and it has really good bokeh.
Click to expand...

I want to go full frame eventually and I'm using nikon at the moment to get at ease with both systems and no more of this canon is better or nikon is better raff ! - I like both systems but as it is the canon has full frame and is moving towards that area almost totally or at least more 1.3x bodies in the near future so I would like to personally keep canon #1 and just use nikon occasionally from time to time.

dod said:
I'd say the canon has nicer bokeh and the colours felt slightly warmer/nicer. Add me to msn if you want
Click to expand...

I don't know your addy :o
 
Thanks for the sample! I have chosen the f4 now with 30D, they didnt have the 17-40 in stock though so I chose the 18-50 2.8 sigma instead, should be good indoors as its sharp at 2.8 at all lengths from what ive seen :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom