Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS vs Canon 70-200 f4 L Non IS

GMac11

GMac11

GMac11

Soldato
Joined
3 Dec 2012
Posts
2,857
Location
Northern Ireland
As the title suggests, has anyone experienced both of these lenses?
I bought the Sigma a couple of months back for my 80D and no doubting it's a great lens but I am beginning to get a little jealous of the much lighter Canon f4. I shoot mainly landscapes and with a tripod so I certainly wouldn't miss the IS for that. However I do shoot the occasional (and i mean very occasional, perhaps 3 or 4 times a year) sports event being football, motorcycling and F1 (when I can get to it). Would I be shooting myself in the foot (pun very much intended) by ditching my Sigma with OS for non IS canon in these situations?
As I don't shoot portraits or indoor scenes I'm not wholly convinced I'd miss the extra stop in aperture however it could be one of those things you don't notice until it's gone
 
I have owned the canon F4 none IS but the canon F4 IS has better optics but not because of the image stabilisation .

Thought I would just add that to the mix.
 
GMac11 said:
Thanks. Yeah I'd seen that mentioned on a few forums. I wonder what the optics on the Sigma compare like to the Canon non is given that the sigma is considerably newer.
Click to expand...

I currently own the f2.8 mark 1 none IS and thinking of going back to the F4 if that helps, I have no need for the weight or the 2.8
 
.one. said:
I currently own the f2.8 mark 1 none IS and thinking of going back to the F4 if that helps, I have no need for the weight or the 2.8
Click to expand...
Yeah the weight of the Sigma 2.8 is unreal, I knew it was heavy but it weighs a ton. So much so that you pretty much need a tripod (or at least monopod to use it) which sort of defeats the purpose of the OS.
 
I have a Canon 70-200 f4 non is and that thing is razor sharp, i would be surprised if optically the Sigma was any better, as it's almost a perfect lens IMO.
 
GMac11 said:
Yeah the weight of the Sigma 2.8 is unreal, I knew it was heavy but it weighs a ton. So much so that you pretty much need a tripod (or at least monopod to use it) which sort of defeats the purpose of the OS.
Click to expand...

Tbf IS on 200mm sports lens is kind of redundant in the first place.
 
Schizo said:
The new 70-200 f4 has just been announced so hopefully it will push the price down on the first one.
Click to expand...
Funny I just saw that on YouTube yesterday. I ended up buying one from WEX for £349 in 9- condition, it arrived yesterday and it's in tip top condition. Hayfever has so far rendered me housebound so I haven't had a chance to get properly using it yet!
I got £455 for my Sigma which considering I paid £450 for it in April I'm very happy with.
 
GMac11 said:
Funny I just saw that on YouTube yesterday. I ended up buying one from WEX for £349 in 9- condition, it arrived yesterday and it's in tip top condition. Hayfever has so far rendered me housebound so I haven't had a chance to get properly using it yet!
I got £455 for my Sigma which considering I paid £450 for it in April I'm very happy with.
Click to expand...
Ah the 70-200 f4.
Let us know what it's like when you get a chance :)
 
.one. said:
If your using it for sport only then obviously yes but a 70-200 can do much more.
Click to expand...

It can do a lot more but with such a fast aperture when are you not shooting faster than 1/200sec? In portraits there is a lot of control over light so when using it for that I was still shooting with a fast shutter speed at f/2.8. It seems that the scenarios in which IS is useful on a fast lens are fairly limited until you hit super telephoto focal lengths.

GMac11 said:
I could understand that for fast moving sport or when you want to freeze the action but I'd be keen to know how people fare with no IS when panning, particularly motorsports or cycling?
Click to expand...

In that scenario certainly IS is useful, but then there's not really the need for an f/2.8 lens in the first place and the other options would probably turn out to be more useful.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
It can do a lot more but with such a fast aperture when are you not shooting faster than 1/200sec? In portraits there is a lot of control over light so when using it for that I was still shooting with a fast shutter speed at f/2.8. It seems that the scenarios in which IS is useful on a fast lens are fairly limited until you hit super telephoto focal lengths.

In that scenario certainly IS is useful, but then there's not really the need for an f/2.8 lens in the first place and the other options would probably turn out to be more useful.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If you can not see the benefit of IS then I am not sure what to say.

Ask canon they will give you a better answer as many others will also.
 
Last edited:
.one. said:
I disagree.

If you can not see the benefit of IS then I am not sure what to say.

Ask canon they will give you a better answer as many others will also.
Click to expand...

You mean Canon will tell me how wonderfully beneficial their own IS products are?

You might want to note that most of Canon's (and other manufacturers) lenses under 200mm don't have IS, there has been no haste to release new products with it because whilst it does open up the range of usable shutter speeds, for the vast majority of situations they are too slow for the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
.one. said:
I disagree.

If you can not see the benefit of IS then I am not sure what to say.

Ask canon they will give you a better answer as many others will also.
Click to expand...
There's obviously no questioning the sheer benefits of IS but unless you're shooting portraits or in low light are those benefits worth the extra size/weight/cost? I've only had my canon a few days and haven't really got beyond the local park with it yet but I know for sure I'm looking forward to a good hike with it which is one thing I definitely couldn't say about the Sigma 2.8. I can hand hold the canon to around 1/100th but for landscapes I would always use a tripod anyway. Even with IS I'd be hesitant to shoot something important below that speed at long focal lengths.
 
Last edited:
GMac11 said:
There's obviously no questioning the sheer benefits of IS but unless you're shooting portraits or in low light are those benefits worth the extra size/weight/cost? I've only had my canon a few days and haven't really got beyond the local park with it yet but I know for sure I'm looking forward to a good hike with it which is one thing I definitely couldn't say about the Sigma 2.8. I can hand hold the canon to around 1/100th but for landscapes I would always use a tripod anyway. Even with IS I'd be hesitant to shoot something important below that speed at long focal lengths.
Click to expand...

I think considering that the only thing you're handholding it for is sports you'd not miss IS much, maybe if you were doing panning shots, but if you take a bunch of shots at 1/50 some of them are gonna turn out sharp regardless. I don't shoot football but with equestrian sporting events I find 1/500 too slow to get sharp results 100% of the time.

At the end of the day the best lens is the one you have with you, and if getting the f/4 makes the difference between you not taking a lens with you, and taking it with you, then I think it's the right decision for you.
 
GMac11 said:
There's obviously no questioning the sheer benefits of IS but unless you're shooting portraits or in low light are those benefits worth the extra size/weight/cost? I've only had my canon a few days and haven't really got beyond the local park with it yet but I know for sure I'm looking forward to a good hike with it which is one thing I definitely couldn't say about the Sigma 2.8. I can hand hold the canon to around 1/100th but for landscapes I would always use a tripod anyway. Even with IS I'd be hesitant to shoot something important below that speed at long focal lengths.
Click to expand...

I answered you way back on this subject and my view, but as you say it has benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom