Zoom lens options Canon

gary996

gary996

gary996

Soldato
Joined
24 Aug 2003
Posts
3,431
Location
Gillingham Kent
In a quandry over what lens to buy.
Choices so far are:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Sigma EX 120-300mm f/2.8 DG HSM APO OS

Or go the cheaper route:

Sigma EX 70-200mm f/2.8 APO HSM DG OS

The extra reach on the 300 would be nice but not paramount.

Is the difference between both the 70-200 really justify the price difference?

Cheers
 
If it was just the price difference no one would buy Canon lenses. Have a look at the new Canon 70-200 on image sites, and reviews and comparisons. You can get them for £1300 ish on *******, or £1500 on digital rev.

I'm currently waiting to see if I can get funding for upgrades and I'm considering the 16-35 with the 70-200 to replace my 70-200 F4L non IS, or just getting the 24-70. The new 70-200 is very nice indeed. I can't fault it.
 
There are plenty of people out there who will always just buy Canon lenses, but that's another story.

I've got a Sigma 70-200 which is every bit as good as the Canon 70-200 non IS mk I, actually it's sharper at the short end. The AF is slightly quicker on the Canon though, although I sold the Canon at the time.

The Canon mkII however is just that bit better in every area, although the new Sigma 70-200 OS is not supposed to be that far behind. Ive got the Canon mkII now, and it is very nice.

The Sigma 120-300 OS is pretty decent, I had the non OS version and it did the job very well. The AF wasn't as quick as the smaller 70-200 lenses but it just about kept up with football. The new version also looks to work well with both 1.4 and 2.0 TCs, there's a thread or two on POTN worth looking at.

If money isn't an issue I'd go for the Canon mkII and perhaps a 1.4x TC for that little extra reach when needed, in fact that is exactly what I did :D
 
Rojin said:
If money isn't an issue I'd go for the Canon mkII and perhaps a 1.4x TC for that little extra reach when needed, in fact that is exactly what I did :D
Click to expand...

That's what I'm considering. I'm still going to get the 1.4tc even if I don't buy it though. I have the x2 kenko but it's soft. Not a major issue for what I use it for, but a 1.4 would be nice for the knowledge I can get longer reach with less IQ loss. I've got the F4 70-200 which I'd recommend to anyone; the only reason I'm not jumping towards the 2.8 is that the 5dmk3 allows me a bit more wiggle room. This allows me to justify a 24-70mkII :o
 
Watching the canon 24-70mk2 review today in comparison to the mk1 on canon rumours, I really don't see the justification for an extra grand. Of course I will wait on further reviews but for almost double the money, no chance.

I adore my 70-200mk2 and use it with a 1.4tc on occasion. Mine is just so sharp from 70 all the way through to 200. If anything it's better at 200 than 70. I wouldn't be without it, my wife could leave our house before than lens ;)
 
Also got to agree, the 70-200 is expensive, but when you see the images it produces you realise just how good a lens it is. It's certainly my favourite lens.
 
dannyjo22 said:
Watching the canon 24-70mk2 review today in comparison to the mk1 on canon rumours, I really don't see the justification for an extra grand. Of course I will wait on further reviews but for almost double the money, no chance.

I adore my 70-200mk2 and use it with a 1.4tc on occasion. Mine is just so sharp from 70 all the way through to 200. If anything it's better at 200 than 70. I wouldn't be without it, my wife could leave our house before than lens ;)
Click to expand...

Where is this review?
 
PistolPete said:
Not the same review but (ironically) ThatNikonGuy on youtube has done a comparison.

I don't think I'll be getting rid of my MKI for a MKII
Click to expand...

Although that is just 1 review that is a little disapointing considering the price, doesn't seem like canon have caught up to the Nikon 24-70G here. Maybe other reviews will show more pronounced improvements like the 70-200mm f.2.8 mk1 to mk2
 
Well other reviews may indeed show a more marked improvement but so far it looks fairly minor to me.

Design-wise, I prefer the mk1 in every single way. It looks better (not a fan of this new design/finish Canon are using) and I much prefer the reverse zoom system as the hood is more useful at all lengths and it protects the extending barrel.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Where is this review?
Click to expand...

Yeah it was the nikon guy one. I thought the improvements where so tiny the price will not stay high for long. The 70-200 started at a nuts price in comparison to the lens it was replacing and soon lost money.

I'm guessing this will soon fall to £1300 as availability increases, atleast from the usual cheaper sources. Then if I haven't managed to source a decent 24-70 mk1 by then I will just buy the 2.

Someone is taking the pee out of us know in this country. For instance the 600RT price I assumed would stay high while they off loaded the 580ex2's. Now they have dried up the import price has been dropping sharply week by week. Currently sitting at £365 which is not a million miles from the 580 price and there is a 600ex to fall in that gap. Yet the cheapest price in the uk is still £499. They have clearly dropped by a massive amount now they are readily available and the 580's are gone but no one is passing on these cuts.

Of course I'm not expecting import prices from a uk seller but I'm not expecting to have my pants pulled down either. Some of the uk sellers need to get their act together or they won't have much of a business in selling bodies and lenses in the short future.
 
Don't take this the wrong way but if you have to ask on a computer forum as to which of two very different, very expensive lenses you should get, it might not be the best idea to get them. Particularly the Sigma 120-300 which is an absolute monster of a lens and you're not going to want use as a walkaround.
 
To be fair, this isn't just a "computer" forum though, is it? There are plenty of knowledgeable people here, some of whom will own or have owned one or more of these lenses and can offer some useful advice.

OTOH, asking whether the Canon 70-200 mk2 is worth the money clearly marks you as insane ;) :D
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
To be fair, this isn't just a "computer" forum though, is it? There are plenty of knowledgeable people here, some of whom will own or have owned one or more of these lenses and can offer some useful advice.

OTOH, asking whether the Canon 70-200 mk2 is worth the money clearly marks you as insane ;) :D
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it in the sense that we wouldn't be able to help, more that if you're unsure of how you'd spend £2k on photography, on very serious, fairly specialist lenses, then maybe it's not the best idea to be spending £2k on photography? As in, if you're not desperately needing something, knowing about what you want, or wanting something to fill an exact role, it's probably not worth spending the money just because it's burning a hole in one's pocket.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
I didn't mean it in the sense that we wouldn't be able to help, more that if you're unsure of how you'd spend £2k on photography, on very serious, fairly specialist lenses, then maybe it's not the best idea to be spending £2k on photography? As in, if you're not desperately needing something, knowing about what you want, or wanting something to fill an exact role, it's probably not worth spending the money just because it's burning a hole in one's pocket.
Click to expand...

Who are you? The money police? :p

I still can't decide whether to get the mk1 or mk2 version of the 70-200mm when I have the cash. Be sensible... Or buy what I really want... decisions decisions!
 
70-200 is not that a "specialist" lens, it is rather versatile if anything.

I would call The 65mm MP-E, the TS-E and the 200mm+ primes are specialist.

The 70-200 mkii is just expensive, and to be really honest, it is a fair price for what you get.

Oh, I've said this once to a friend before, if they make a 14-200mm F/1.4 zoom but charges £10k? or even £15k.

I would buy it in a heartbeat. I could even live with it even if its a 1.4-2.8 aperture. It would save so much gear I have to carry. That would be the best lens ever !
 
Raymond Lin said:
70-200 is not that a "specialist" lens, it is rather versatile if anything.

I would call The 65mm MP-E, the TS-E and the 200mm+ primes are specialist.

The 70-200 mkii is just expensive, and to be really honest, it is a fair price for what you get.

Oh, I've said this once to a friend before, if they make a 14-200mm F/1.4 zoom but charges £10k? or even £15k.

I would buy it in a heartbeat. I could even live with it even if its a 1.4-2.8 aperture. It would save so much gear I have to carry. That would be the best lens ever !
Click to expand...

You'd probably have to have a tripod on wheels for weddings :D
 
I have the 70-200mm F2.8 mkii, yes its expensive but it is just incredible, pin sharp at any focal length at F2.8.

My only other frame of reference is a 70-200mm F4 non IS, which this is miles better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom