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

GMac11 · 5 Jun 2018 at 14:57

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

GMac11 · 5 Jun 2018 at 15:10

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.

GMac11 · 5 Jun 2018 at 15:27

.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

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.

GMac11 · 8 Jun 2018 at 09:57

Schizo said:
The new 70-200 f4 has just been announced so hopefully it will push the price down on the first one.

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 · 9 Jun 2018 at 10:53

.one. said:
If your using it for sport only then obviously yes but a 70-200 can do much more.

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?

GMac11 · 10 Jun 2018 at 12:09

.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.

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.