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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 21, 2007, 6:28 PM   #1
Member
 
btrips's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 76
Default

Which picture looks better? First one is the Sigma

Trying to decide if I should sell my Sigma and get the Canon.

THanks

btrips
Attached Images
 
btrips is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 21, 2007, 6:29 PM   #2
Member
 
btrips's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 76
Default

2nd pic from the Canon
Attached Images
 
btrips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2007, 7:19 PM   #3
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

At this size no one will be able to tell , or are we looking at a 100% crop, if so I can't really see much difference.

I do keep considering this myself now that I'm shooting weddings so the IS could be useful. The Canon is generally sharper, especially at the long end.

How much are you using this lens and what sort of shooting?
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2007, 8:02 PM   #4
Member
 
btrips's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 76
Default

Here is a crop of the canon 70-200 2.8 USM (non IS)
Attached Images
 
btrips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 21, 2007, 8:04 PM   #5
Member
 
btrips's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 76
Default

Here is a crop of the Sigma.

Just looking for some feedback. The canon colors look better and the stone/brick on the buildings seems to be sharper. Those are the two things that stand out to me.

I am no expert by any means, just looking for confirmation on what I am seeing or not seeing!:-)

I have owned the Sigma for 8 months and use it for outdoor sports.

THanks for the help.

btrips
Attached Images
 
btrips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2007, 5:34 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Up to about 150mm the two lenses are very similar with the Sigma generally being sharper (especially in the centre). It is at 200mm that you really see a difference with the Sigma dropping off resolution quite a lot with 2.8 being pretty soft. The Canon is a lot stronger and is sharper with a 1.4 x TC fitted than the Sigma is without at the long end so you can see this is where you are really getting your monies worth. In nearly every review I've seen the colour/contrast of the Canon is also better. As mentioned I've got a lot of good use from my Sigma but if I was now using it as my main sports lens would probably make a change, fortunately I have the Sigma 120-300 which gives fantastic results that never disappoint so the 70-200 comes out less and less. I'm mainly using it in weddings on my 2nd body for long shots and it is also a nice portrait lens on the 5D when stopped down.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2007, 11:33 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
Default

It depends on what you get, my Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 is sharper than my canon was.
Mark1616 i hope you are around over the weekend so we can do a bit of testing
gaida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2007, 12:19 PM   #8
Member
 
chrisg19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 41
Default

I just recently made the switch from the Sigma to the Canon. Both are very capable lenses, however my personal experience is that the Canon provides a more consistently sharp photo. In my opinion, the Canon also tracks, and focuses faster. There were times when the Sigma would hunt, wasting valuable time, and I never seem to feel that way with the Canon.

I am pretty confident I can go through my library, and provide photos shot with both lenses that you would be hard pressed to determine which is "better". The difference to me is that when I pick up the camera to take a shot, I have more confidence that I will get the shot with the Canon. Both lenses are capable of taking great photos, I just believe the Canon does so more consistently.


Chris
chrisg19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2007, 6:02 AM   #9
Member
 
Hank355's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 63
Default

I would stick with the Canon lens. Also, could you post comparisons with people, and skin tones? Being a people photographer, primarily, I can tell better if I saw some humans. That blue is quite brilliant by itself, I think it isn't a fair test. It's like a Superman blue. The bricks as the background aren't very telling, as well. But there are other things to consider. Like Chris says, if the Canon is better at focusing then, you could miss your best shot ever b/c the sigma wasn't focusing correctly. Go with the Canon.
Hank355 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2007, 11:14 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO skin tone is not as critical with a dSLR...

In fact I normally put a KR1.5 or KR3 in front of my Canon's to duplicate the warmness of the Sigma - Try it: look through both lenses in front of a white piece of paper and you should see the slight KR1.5/3 tint inherent in the Sigma's anti-glare coating
-> Problem is unless you shoot at a fixed WB then all this is a moot point correct? Especially in RAW, but the AWB of the digital camera should cancel everything out... up front
NHL 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 9:05 AM.