70-200mm: Sigma EX or Canon L?

[stew]

My current lens is the Canon 24-85mm. In addition to the lens that came with my Digital Rebel kit, these are the only 2 I own so far.

I've been in a number of situations now where I would have loved more telephoto zoom capability, so I'm considering to purchase a 70-200mm lens in the near future. I've read many great reviews on 3 lenses: Canon f2.8L USM IS ($1600), Canon f4.0L USM ($550), and the Sigma APO EX HSM ($739). All prices are by B&H.

I do like to do early morning and late evening shots, and even some night shots which seems to make the f2.8 options attractive, as well as the IS capability. Sigma seems like the best compromise here (f2.8, no IS capability, good price). The Canon f2.8L IS is tantalizing, but the cost! Ai, carumba. Honestly, I could afford the 2.8L but I don't want to spend that money on that lens if others offer a good alternative at lower cost.

Is the Sigma lens comparable in quality to the Canons? I would love to hear from your experiences... also, anyone used converters with them? Results?

Thanks in advance,
Stew

[Sean Dempsey]

I have a DRebel too, and here is what I have/will have

The lense that came with it...
The Tamron 28-300 which I love
and a Sigma 105 macro..

here is the link to the Tamrom
http://www.adorama.com/TM28300XEOS.html

As a Drebel owner and and an owner of this lense, they are both great.

A 70-200 is awful limited. With the 28-300, you have huge flexibility, I hardly ever switch lenses. With the 18-55 and the 100 macro, that's all I really need.

[Liz]

Hi Stew,
I don't have either one, but have read many posts here about the Canon 70-200 - both the 2.8 and the 4.0. Excellent. However, I hear what you're saying about the low light. I tried out a friend's Canon 70-200/f4.0 and it was excellent. However I chose the Canon 200mm/f2.8 L as my compromise for the same reason - the 2.8. I LOVE this lens! My only "L" lens!

Here are the reviews for the Sigma
http://www.photographyreview.com/35m...8_3128crx.aspx

Here are the reviews for Canon 70-200/f4.0
http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_84503_3128crx.aspx

Just in case you want a 3rd alternative ;) .......B&H price is $625 after rebate
http://www.photographyreview.com/35m...6_3111crx.aspx

Liz

My current lens is the Canon 24-85mm. In addition to the lens that came with my Digital Rebel kit, these are the only 2 I own so far.

I've been in a number of situations now where I would have loved more telephoto zoom capability, so I'm considering to purchase a 70-200mm lens in the near future. I've read many great reviews on 3 lenses: Canon f2.8L USM IS ($1600), Canon f4.0L USM ($550), and the Sigma APO EX HSM ($739). All prices are by B&H.

I do like to do early morning and late evening shots, and even some night shots which seems to make the f2.8 options attractive, as well as the IS capability. Sigma seems like the best compromise here (f2.8, no IS capability, good price). The Canon f2.8L IS is tantalizing, but the cost! Ai, carumba. Honestly, I could afford the 2.8L but I don't want to spend that money on that lens if others offer a good alternative at lower cost.

Is the Sigma lens comparable in quality to the Canons? I would love to hear from your experiences... also, anyone used converters with them? Results?

Thanks in advance,
Stew

[Mig]

I have the Canon f4.0L and love it. Like you, the cost was important to me and that was a large part of my decision. I also enjoy taking early morning & late evening shots, but I normally use my tripod (especially since I love me some Velvia). I don't think you can go wrong with any of those 3 - or 4 since Liz was kind enough to make your decision harder (heh, just kidding Liz, you know I love ya!).

I'd stay away from the Tamron 28-300; the quality is nowhere near the others you're looking at. I don't know if you've been to this site - I find it helpful when considering new lenses. Of course they're not official ratings, but I use them in conjunction with the reviews here and it's worked out well for me.

[Charles Hess]

I guess it comes down to your budget. the Canon Ls are top-notch, no question about it, but the Sigma is capable of superb results, as well. The Tamron 28-300 is a great, all-around, 1-lens-for-travel set-up, but its image quality is 2nd to the others mentioned. If money no object, the Canon 70-200/2.8. My Nikon 80-200/2.8 is on my D100 almost al of the time.

[darkman]

If money is not an issue, by all means get the canon 2.8L IS.

I have the sigma version. It's an awesome lens, focus speed in on par with canon's, and it's 1/3 the cost. CdI rated it only very slighly below the canon. It's perfomance with the dedicated 1.4x tc is very good too.

AF in low light on the drebel or 10d isn't that great. Much is going to depend on what you consider low light. I shoot a lot of indoor sports and in some gyms my 10d struggles with f/2.8 lenses.

For sunset and evening f/4 should be fine. I've never really had a problem even with my 28-135IS lens at these time. IS helps, but doesn't replace a sturdy tripod.

PS: I got my sigma and tc here: www.deltainternational.com for significanlty less than B&H.

[stew]

First off, thanks for all the great feedback so far. Especially to Liz, for mixing it up some more Just kidding!!

I'm sure the fixed 200m L lens is awesome in optical quality, and the price is great (I just looked)! My thought, however, is to go with a zoom, not a prime. The reasoning is that I find myself using the zoom all the time with my 24-85mm lens - it's really helps me frame pictures just right, especially in action-type shots (haven't posted any of those here, but I do take them... and plan to take more in the future, especially with rowing season starting on the Charles River). I'm not going to get the 2.8L because of the price... even if it's within my reach (yes, money *is* an object even if I have enough), I think I would prefer to save money to spend on some filters, a bigger camera bag, film processing, etc and still be way below the 2.8L cost.

So that leaves me with the Sigma vs. 4.0L. I'm going to have to try them out at a camera store to get a feel for both. The 4.0L is cheaper than the Sigma, has consistently better reviews, and is lighter. Of course, f2.8 is missing.... but I do have a tripod, so...

OK, this is shaping up as an internal struggle! Thanks for the valuable input! It has actually helped me clarify a lot...

[Mig]

Ooh! Speaking of tripods...the 4.0L does NOT come with a tripod collar. The one specifically made for it is another $114. The Sigma does comes with one I believe.

Danielle

[stew]

Ooh! Speaking of tripods...the 4.0L does NOT come with a tripod collar. The one specifically made for it is another $114. The Sigma does comes with one I believe.

Danielle

You're right - I had that part switched in my original post. Thanks for the correction!

-Stew

[Sebastian]

I have a DRebel too, and here is what I have/will have

The lense that came with it...
The Tamron 28-300 which I love
and a Sigma 105 macro..

here is the link to the Tamrom
http://www.adorama.com/TM28300XEOS.html

As a Drebel owner and and an owner of this lense, they are both great.

A 70-200 is awful limited. With the 28-300, you have huge flexibility, I hardly ever switch lenses. With the 18-55 and the 100 macro, that's all I really need.

Sean,

The 70-200 range is far superior to any lenses you have listed in both quality and speed. Focal length range is a minor consideration if you're looking for quality.

Stew,

Never owned one, but the pro Sigmas seem well built. Personally, I have owned two Tamron and had both fail from regular use. One had a zoom ring get loose to the point of just spinning around (28-200) and the other was leaking lube all over the lens barrel (90mm macro). I know others have had no issues, but I have never had a problem with any Nikon or Canon glass. Although it might be premature to say with Canon since I only have had them for a month...knock on wood. Anyway, I would just say be weary of Tamron.

Good luck.

[stew]

Sean,

The 70-200 range is far superior to any lenses you have listed in both quality and speed. Focal length range is a minor consideration if you're looking for quality.

Stew,

Never owned one, but the pro Sigmas seem well built. Personally, I have owned two Tamron and had both fail from regular use. One had a zoom ring get loose to the point of just spinning around (28-200) and the other was leaking lube all over the lens barrel (90mm macro). I know others have had no issues, but I have never had a problem with any Nikon or Canon glass. Although it might be premature to say with Canon since I only have had them for a month...knock on wood. Anyway, I would just say be weary of Tamron.

Good luck.

I actually have a buddy with a Tamron zoom tele (it goes to 300mm if I remember, but I don't know if it's the same one that was previously mentioned). I was not too impressed with it (sorry Sean) so I ruled Tamron out from the beginning. I believe the Sigma EX is well-made (from consumer/user reviews here and on other sites, and comments in this post) and I know the Canon L is.

Interestingly, I went to the local Ritz camera store to see what lenses they had in stock. Nothing much, let me say. Anyway, they happened to have the Canon 24-40mm L there so I tried it on so to speak, and snapped a few. Overall, the L seemed much more solid, better built, rugged, and heavier than my 24-85mm "regular" lens. I don't have a valid comparison point to compare the photos I took using the L, but the resulting images seemed very sharp on my monitor.

[Lionheart]

My two cents...I own the 70-200 f2.8L IS, and used to have the previous non IS version as well. It's the lens I NEVER go without when shooting with my Canon SLR's. There image quality is worth the cost and weight. These days though, I wish I had a 28-300 zoom so I can travel light, especially at the end of this month when I travel to Chicago to visit friends and relatives (and to go to my wife's 20th high school re-union).

[cush]

I have the 70-200 F4L and it is going on ebay next week. I love the lens but want the 2.8 / IS version. I am also replacing the EF-S that came with my dRebel with the EF 24-70mm f2.8L. Nice part about this combo is that the share the same filter size so I won't need two of everything (besides skylights). I decided on the faster lenses because a lot of my shots will be low light action (XC mountain biking, evening lacrosse games, etc.). Hope this helps!

My current lens is the Canon 24-85mm. In addition to the lens that came with my Digital Rebel kit, these are the only 2 I own so far.

I've been in a number of situations now where I would have loved more telephoto zoom capability, so I'm considering to purchase a 70-200mm lens in the near future. I've read many great reviews on 3 lenses: Canon f2.8L USM IS ($1600), Canon f4.0L USM ($550), and the Sigma APO EX HSM ($739). All prices are by B&H.

I do like to do early morning and late evening shots, and even some night shots which seems to make the f2.8 options attractive, as well as the IS capability. Sigma seems like the best compromise here (f2.8, no IS capability, good price). The Canon f2.8L IS is tantalizing, but the cost! Ai, carumba. Honestly, I could afford the 2.8L but I don't want to spend that money on that lens if others offer a good alternative at lower cost.

Is the Sigma lens comparable in quality to the Canons? I would love to hear from your experiences... also, anyone used converters with them? Results?

Thanks in advance,
Stew