Stuck in a dilemma for a new lenses

ChrisD.

ChrisD.

ChrisD.

Man of Honour
Joined
20 Sep 2006
Posts
35,503
Long story short, my Canon 55-250 needs replacing, and I am wondering if the £1000 or so difference between the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 L II f/2.8 is really worth it?

Don't get me wrong, I know the Canon is a beauty of a lens, but with an extra £1000 in my pocket to spend on something else such Canon 24-105 L or a Canon 24-70 L it makes an interesting alternate.

Body is a 60D and current lenses are the 17-85 Kit lens, nifty and the 55-250 which has a broken filter/hood mount point.
 
Last edited:
Don't get either of the 24-* lenes on a crop. The extra wideness of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM will be useful. It's pretty much an L lens in terms of image quality but has a resin construction and doesn't have the weather sealing.

Example shot on a 550D which isn't too dissimilar:


HSCC_20130714-0137 by Bryan Janes, on Flickr

Save yourself some more money and just get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM, don't bother with the IS, I don't even bother with IS when shooting Motorsport. The f2.8 is a bloody heavy lens which is something to consider if you are shooting handheld. 705g vs something like 1.3kg on the f2.8!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I get that, just is it worth upgrading a lens, which lets be honest, is a pretty decent all rounder, when most of my effort goes into motorsport. Saying that, the f2/8 would be lovely for when I go on holiday soon.
 
I was only basing this on the fact that you were considering upgrading the lens in the first place. I'd still say so, motorsport isn't all long panning shots - the 1-2 stops of light are really useful in dimly lit garages, etc.
 
Last edited:
MilanoChris said:
But is it that much better than my 17-85? I don't find it that bad.
Click to expand...

It is a big improvement, for me though it's not just about that it's about getting the most out of your budget as a hobbiest. If all you do is motor sport and your sure the 70-200mm will always be long enough then get the Canon mkii f2.8 as it is an awsome piece of kit however if as it appears you do more general photography like holidays etc then if you split your budget you can get big improvements in all areas the latest sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS is a great lens not as good as the Canon but still impressive and the budget saved will let you improve all you other photography as well which to me as a hobbiest represents a better return on your investment.

Only you can really say what is the right call for you but that would be my advice.
 
Personally I would look at the 70-300L as the extra reach is probably more useful shooting motorsport than the faster aperture. The results from the 70-300L are very sharp too so I wouldn't dismiss it based on it being variable aperture.
 
Janesy B said:
Don't get either of the 24-* lenes on a crop. The extra wideness of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM will be useful. It's pretty much an L lens in terms of image quality but has a resin construction and doesn't have the weather sealing.

Example shot on a 550D which isn't too dissimilar:


Save yourself some more money and just get the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM, don't bother with the IS, I don't even bother with IS when shooting Motorsport. The f2.8 is a bloody heavy lens which is something to consider if you are shooting handheld. 705g vs something like 1.3kg on the f2.8!
Click to expand...


This, don't consider a 24-xx lens on crop. 24mm just does;t work for general use and you are getting 1 f 2 different limitation compared to the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - you either end up a stop slower or loose IS.

As for the sigma vs Canon. When I looked seriously at the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 a few years ago the Nikon was clearly superior in sharpness, especially at 200mm, and the difference got bigger with a TC. Actually the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is much sharper but has slower AF.

The ability of the new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS 2 to take teleconverters really makes for a very versatile lens. You get an excellent 280mm f/4.0 and a workable 400mm f/5.6 that becomes very good at f/8
 
olv said:
Personally I would look at the 70-300L as the extra reach is probably more useful shooting motorsport than the faster aperture. The results from the 70-300L are very sharp too so I wouldn't dismiss it based on it being variable aperture.
Click to expand...

This is also good advice. I Use my Nikon 70-300mm VR far, far more often than my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 which just sits getting dust really. The 70-300 is just as sharp over the 70-200mm range and although softer at 300mm is still good enough and the 300mm end captures far more detail than the 200mm end of the 70-200mm f/2.8. You can put a TC on the 70-200 to get f 280mm f/4 but wide open it is not massively sharper than the 70-300. If you stop the 70-200 +1.4 combo down to f/5.6 it is better than the 70-300 but then you now have a lens that weighs twice the amount to do the same thing....
 
Well, I've just ordered the Canon 70-200 F2.8 II IS

I figure I will make more use of it than a crop lens. Maybe I'll treat myself to a crop lens in a month or so.
 
Did you actually use the Sigma to see how it works out? I feel you've spent an additional grand that could have been put to much better use funding the 17-55 as mentioned above.
 
I went into the London Camera Exchange after work. I had a play with the Sigma and the Mk1 70-200 f2.8 and I much preferred the look and the feel of the Canon. I also felt it took sharper pictures towards the top end of the zoom range. I can only imagine that the MkII is another step up. Granted the Sigma isn't bad but most things I will shoot will be with the Canon so oh well.
 
Hope you're going to buy a CPL or a ND filter because you'll need that if you plan on shooting in sunny conditions at f/2.8, especially if you want to slow down the action. You'll probably want a monopod as well, unless you have mega arms :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom