Which Canon fit 70-200 to get?

Wang · 10 Dec 2018 at 20:43

Hi people.

Decided to treat myself to a 70-200. The three choices seem to be:

Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS II (the MkIII is a bit too expensive to justify as a treat for myself)
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 g2
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ART

Now I know the Canon is getting on for being a decade old design, so are these third party lenses superior in terms of focus speed and accuracy (especially in low light) and image quality, given they are much more recent? Or is the Canon still considered to be the best (with the exception of the latest revision).

Just realised the Sigma doesn't seem to be available yet and will likely be very expensive anyway. So looks like a toss up between the Canon and the Tamron.

Cheers.

Lee.

Energize · 11 Dec 2018 at 00:34

In general, sigma Art lenses are optically superior to 1st party lenses and are substantially cheaper so I wouldn't rule it out straight away.

And · 11 Dec 2018 at 19:00

Surely you mean Sports?

That aside I'm sure it will be very good but it's tough to see past the Canon, which is what I'd buy.

Wang said:
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 ART

Energize · 11 Dec 2018 at 20:52

Yeah having a look its designation is Sport not Art.

The sigma lens has more diaphragm blades and more elements which will improve optical quality, but I don't know what the cost will be?

Wang · 11 Dec 2018 at 21:22

And said:
Surely you mean Sports?

That aside I'm sure it will be very good but it's tough to see past the Canon, which is what I'd buy.

Apologies. I did mean Sports.

Wang · 11 Dec 2018 at 21:25

Energize said:
Yeah having a look its designation is Sport not Art.

The sigma lens has more diaphragm blades and more elements which will improve optical quality, but I don't know what the cost will be?

It is apparently just under 2kg. Also, would having to move more/heavier glass around have an impact on focus speed possibly? I know if I choose the Canon I am guaranteed a quality lens. I just didn't want to drop a fair chunk of change on something that is being outperformed by newer, cheaper kit.

And · 11 Dec 2018 at 22:58

If it (the Sigma) outperforms it (the Canon II) it's not going to be a massive leap, just marginal gains, and the Canon is already an excellent lens, but I can understand your reticence. I think the Sigma is earmarked for $1,500 (make of that what you will for ££££) while the Canon comes in about £1,100 (or £1,500 for the III).

Wang said:
It is apparently just under 2kg. Also, would having to move more/heavier glass around have an impact on focus speed possibly? I know if I choose the Canon I am guaranteed a quality lens. I just didn't want to drop a fair chunk of change on something that is being outperformed by newer, cheaper kit.

D.P. · 13 Dec 2018 at 08:06

None of the previous Sigma 70-200mm have been a match for the Nikon or Canons. Decent overall but not optically as good and noticeable focus limits. When the cost is taken in to acoutn they are worth considering but you can also look at second hand Canon/Nikon. Sigma does better at the fast primes but also the longer telephoto zooms that don;t quite have a Canon/Nikon equivalency, e.g. the 150-600mm sport is decent enough but the Nikon 200-500mm is better optically, but 100mm shorter.

So i would wait for detailed reviews first.

Rexxar · 14 Dec 2018 at 10:59

Picked up my 70-200 f4l fairly cheaply and there's lots available on photo forums. Might be worth a look unless you need f2. 8

tris101 · 22 Dec 2018 at 21:16

The canon 70-200 f2.8 is mkii is one of the best lens available fast, super sharp, one of my favourite lens. I would go for a canon over 3rd party.

F2.8 are heavy lens.

Energize · 25 Dec 2018 at 00:57

D.P. said:
None of the previous Sigma 70-200mm have been a match for the Nikon or Canons. Decent overall but not optically as good and noticeable focus limits. When the cost is taken in to acoutn they are worth considering but you can also look at second hand Canon/Nikon. Sigma does better at the fast primes but also the longer telephoto zooms that don;t quite have a Canon/Nikon equivalency, e.g. the 150-600mm sport is decent enough but the Nikon 200-500mm is better optically, but 100mm shorter.

So i would wait for detailed reviews first.

True, but as you mentioned, the new lenses such as the fast primes and 24-70 f/2.8 which consistently beat Nikon and Canon for optical quality show that Sigma has turned a corner in manufacturing technology. I think we can expect the 70-200mm to beat Nikon and Canon in optical quality based on their current performance.