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

200mm F4, no processing

boatcrop.jpg


from this, resize and sharpened

boat70200.jpg
 
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
 
mrk said:
I guess that's the canon one?
Click to expand...

Sorry, no, the sigma. To be honest the sharpness of either isn't in question. You're looking at a few lines per mm. I miss the f4 for its lightness and size. The F2.8 is handy when you're hitting ISO 800 and still need to keep a quick shutter speed.
 
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
 
I'd say the canon has nicer bokeh and the colours felt slightly warmer/nicer. Add me to msn if you want
 
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
 
I have the 70-200 F/4 and I had this same problem when trying to decide whether I would get the Sigma or not.

Mine somewhat became decided for me because I found the Canon at a price I couldn't turn away and also I did not want to blow the budget on my first big spend lens. You however are much more experienced than me so I presume this would not be a factor for you.

The 70-200 pros:
- Light and super easy to handle
- The built quality, it just has this presence when you hold it
- The F/4 is quick, ok not 2.8 quick but I am a daytime person so it does not affect me at all
- The sharpness

This is an unsharpened and hardly touched photo, literally just took it and resized it for my web-site:

IMG_1999.JPG


If you would like to view a 1600 x 1200 version (half the original size) you can view it here- LINK - Note the rain detail.

I took this at F1 testing with the lens, I applied sharpening after however this was only because I lost some detail when resizing:

IMG_2435.JPG
 
You should normally gain sharpening when resizing (as long as you go *down* in size!).

Downsizing an image is a form of sharpening.
 
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 :)
 
Samiad said:
You should normally gain sharpening when resizing (as long as you go *down* in size!).
Downsizing an image is a form of sharpening.
Click to expand...

Downsizing hides softness but a full size sharp image will always lose detail when reducing image size.

This is the reason why you soften an image during upsize and sharpen when you downsize :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom