Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 9, 2005, 11:01 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

The Sigma 70-200 is my workhorse... besides IS is for sissys :blah: (oh am i going to pay for that! you guys know i'm just teasing...)

I have no experience with the Canon lens either the f4 or f2.8. Here's what I can tell you. I NEED that extra stop that the 2.8 gives me! Here's something I have noticed. With the DRebel i tend to use a monopod. I shoot vertical 99% of the time and I didn't have at battery grip for the DRebel so I ended up using the monopod for stability. First thing I bought with the 20D is the battery grip. So besides giving me the vertical shutter release it's help give the Sigma a better balance. Couple that with a better ISO1600 and an available ISO 3200 I find myself shooting everything just plain old handheld. Of course the 20D, grip and Sigma make a pretty heft package... by the end of this last meet my arms were pretty tired.

Bottom line is the Sigma is fast both optically and mechanically and I'm extremely happy with the images I get from it. I would not hesitate recommending it...

hth,
john
Mr_Saginaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2005, 8:13 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Scotious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 203
Default

Wow-- I'm very impressed Mr. Saginaw. I'm a newbie to stills, videographer by trade, and have only been in the gym to shoot stills once, and failed miserably, with my Olympus 770, At my nephews wrestling match in Chicago-- a low light, orangish, mercury vaporish place, and I ended up with nothing. These are really impressive. 3200 ISO and where's the noise?

Great job. Here's the best I got, and it's....sad.

Signed, Mr. Ann Arbor
Attached Images
 
Scotious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 3:38 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

Scotious wrote:
Quote:
... have only been in the gym to shoot stills once, and failed miserably...
it's might sound cliche but... Been there! Done that!

Well, it's like this... I started shooting gymnastics 3 years ago. I tried doing it with my 35mm Minolta and some old cheap lens i had (read SLOW). The results were absolutely horrible.. So I decided if i wanted good pictures I would need to buy news lens... well if I'm buying new lens then I might as well go digital. So I convinced the wife I really neeeded a DRebel and about another $1,000 for lens... So for about $2,000 I was finally able to get the results I wanted... Then last month I upgraded to the 20D... WOW! For me it was well worth the cost! This camera is just fantastic...

BTW... I used to work in A^2... surprised you'ld even look at a subject that had "Michigan State" in it! LOL!

john
Mr_Saginaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2005, 7:24 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

Thanks guys for all the info. I really don't have a choice any more. The Canon 70-200 F4L seems to be on the discontinued list. It is not available at any of the Ritz or Wolf Camera stores in the bay area. I don't know if it is still available on the Internet or not, but in any case I have decided on the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 because of the teleconverters 1.4 and 2.0 autofocus works with both but not with Canon f4l.
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2005, 10:51 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

O.K. So my dreams og one day ownong an L-series lens have been shattered:sad:.

I went and picked up the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX. I then rented the Canon 70-200 F2.8L.

I did some comparison shots, bot at F2.8, 200mm, 1/15, ISO 100. The Canon came out a little bit sharper in most tests but not all. My tripod was too weak for these big lenses so I may have been getting a little camera shake.

Here is the test from the Sigma


Attached Images
 
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2005, 10:54 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

Here is the test from the Canon 70-200 F2.8.



I have decided to get the Sigma 2.8 because i was going to get the Canon 70-200 F4L, but now I see I would rather have a 2.8 lens. At F4.0 I couldn't tell any difference at all between Canon 2.8 and Sigma 2.8, only at the extremes did it become a little noticable.
Attached Images
 
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 17, 2005, 6:17 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

Minutephotos; I think you made a good choice with the Sigma. I would think the 2.8 will work much better for you than the Canon 4.0. I really love my Canon 2.8, but think the Sigma is up to the task.

Not that statement by Saginaw [IS is for sissys] boy that really made me bristle. LOL Actually I really like the IS for how I use my cam. It could be well argued that the IS may not be that necessary for up to 200. Obviously depends on shutter speed which Minutephotos really helped with the faster lense.

Best wishes with the new lense.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2005, 1:55 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

It has a really hard choice. I would have loved to get the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, but had to get what I could afford. Hopefully, by generatering better shots with the Sigma I will one day be able to afford Canon L-series IS lenses. I believe IS is a great feature as the F2.8 lenses can be very heavy and hard to hold.
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.