Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 1, 2005, 12:04 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

When I priced the Canon against the Sigma six months ago, the Sigma F2.8 was about $200 more.

If they are the same price, then for sure, take a hard look at the Sigma F2.8.

Although the Canon is probably quite a bit lighter to carry around.

-- Terry
terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2005, 12:18 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

I see you talking about a lens being faster than another. Can you explain what you mean by that?
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2005, 12:32 AM   #23
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 84
Default

Faster in terms of lenses generally means larger apertures = lower f/number = more light hitting the sensor = the ability to use faster shutter speeds without adjusting any other settings. That's where faster comes from (I would assume...)

Edited for spelling.
BrianSkibinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2005, 12:47 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 429
Default

With my fz 20 I can pick my f stop.

When using a DSLR and a lens with say a 4.5 f stop will the camera not go down to a 2.8 or does it automatically stop you at 4.5? Can you explain any on that.
RP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2005, 2:36 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
When using a DSLR and a lens with say a 4.5 f stop will the camera not go down to a 2.8 or does it automatically stop you at 4.5? Can you explain any on that.
Correct. The camera will not allow you to choose an f number lower than the lens will allow (mainly because the lens itself is, by design, incabable of letting more light in).
BrianSkibinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2005, 1:53 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

I went throught this same delima when I first started shooting...

Then I learned th importance of Speed...

I love my Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and compared it directly against the Canon F2.8. To me, the Sigma is a sharper lens, but is definatly a slower focusing lens.

I prefer an F2.8 lens more for the shallow depth of field, at F2.8 or F4.0 the DOP is much narrower for affects.

My choices would be in Canon 70-200 IS, Canon 70-200, Sigma EX, Canon f4.

first 3 are all heavy.

Patrick
minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2005, 9:07 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

Yah, the Canon 70-200 F4 is a good outdoor lens, but indoors, I suspect it wouldn't handle low light situations well (I only use mine outdoors).

That's why the F2.8 lenses are pretty cool.

Some people, including myself, use fast primes indoors, like a 50mm F1.4 (for indoor track-side) or some people are using an 85mm F1.8 prime for basketball with good results.

You could probably get away withan F2.8 70-200 sigma or canon indoors.

My style is sort of "close up", so I'm kinda one of the few sports photogs using wide angles at sports events.

I was at a cross-country running event the other day and I saw a guy hauling around what had to be a 600mm Canon L lens or something massive like that, which I figured was a little on the overkill side for an event that you can get close to the participants generally speaking.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2005, 12:14 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

AlpineMan wrote:
Quote:
Instead of the Canon 17-85mm IS, I'd go with the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC. It's sharper and faster for about the same price. If you can afford the Canon 70-200mm f4, then you can afford the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX HSM...they're about priced the same...again a faster lens.
I know sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens but why do people keep saying that canon 70-200 f4 and sigma 70-200 f2.8 are roughly priced same.

You can get canon 70-200 f4 for $550. Sigma costs $750 at Sigma4Less while $840 or so at B&H. That's a big difference, IMHO. Now if you adding price of tripod collar into the canon lens, then it is different. I never sued tripod collar on my 70-200 f4 as the lens is light (I have one from my 400mm f5.6 lens)


bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2005, 1:43 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

The truth of the matter is... I learn slow.

Many users in this forum and others told me to invest in fast L-series lenses. I have concluded, that although the Sigma is a pretty good lens and in picture quality simular to the Canon lenses. However, I know I will be doing photography fora long time and wish I was smart enough to have saved my money for the L-series F2.8 lenses.

I have a 50 1.8 and although it takes really sharp photos, I very seldom use it. The zoom lenses are just way more functional.

The Tamron 28-75 is also really sharp but I now prefer internal focus / zoom lenses like the Sigma and hate variable aperture lenses.

I paid the price the hard way to learn this though....
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 11:33 PM.