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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 10, 2008, 9:07 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

Canon

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/item/321-700N/



Sigma

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/item/399-072B/





Above are two lenses one Canon one Sigma both 70-200mm f2.8

The Canon model costs £500 more (aprox), why is this?

The links were not working properly the last time I tried them, so hopefully you will have better luck

Canon[/b]

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=canon-70200mm-f28l-is-ef-usm-image-stabilizer-autofocus-telephoto-zoom-lens



Sigma[/b]

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?pName=sigma-70200mm-f28-dg-macro-hsm-ii-af-zoom-lens-for-canon-eos



These links work better, but the difference is about £400

Why is the Canon more expensive though?




Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 10, 2008, 9:50 AM   #2
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

I chose the canon lens over the sigma but not before taking considerable time trying them both out before buying. I rented mine for the first year at competitive swimming meets then bought the canon 70 - 200 2.8 non IS. (didn't need the IS for action shots)

I had no problem to speak of with either lens so I didn't worry about the few extra dollars to buy the canon. For me, I chose the canon not due to any visual quality differences, as I didn't see any, I chose just because of the name.

If canon sells it, I'll buy it,...if they don't, then I have to look at the other suppliers.

Go to my website and check out my "sports gallery". These shots are taken with the canon 70 - 200 2.8 non IS.

www.poetryofmotion.com
spy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 10:53 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,105
Default

FIrst thing is the letter L attached to that Canon Lens(Yes premium price for anything named as L except the 17-40 which i consider moderately priced)

Second thing is how the L build helps. honestly i have not seena two year or three year old canon L lens flaking or losing paint due to moisuture or weather related reasons. But sigma i doubt if it will hold its paint. It gives a really work out look. But again, i lived in india for six months and i saw flakes in atleast three places in my 120-300

Thirdly the idea of sigma to sell a 70-200 f2.8 at a lower price is to attract more sales.

Functionally there isnt much of a difference. The Sigma will be as sharp as Canon + can do half macro

Great value for money. Puts more emphasis on how u maintain it and store it. A lens coat will be a good idea for sigma.
nymphetamine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 10:59 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default

To Spy Thanks, great siteI have left my comment on one of your pictures.

and for the other advice nymphetamine



I am still in 2 minds.

My thoughts...........

Sigma is a great company as I have learn't from my 12-24mm wide angle from an earlier discussion, after not being sure between that and a Canon equivilant. But wear & tear could have a greater effect on the Sigma. Currently my best equipmentconsists of a Canon 40D Canon 28-300 LS Series Lens a Sigma 12-24

I often go out with a 350D as back up with the other lens attachedto save changing lenses.

I mostly photograph Architectural landscapes and sometimes get experience at photographing events

Conclusion

The question is could the other £400 be better spent and on what, in a few more months time I could put that £400 towards the model that superseeds the 40D or would that be a complete waste?


Mr Shift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 11:26 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Interesting that you mention this. For the last 4 years I have worked with the SIgma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM (non DG, non macro version).

Tomorrow I will be receiving my Canon 70-200 2.8L replacement for it.

I have found the IQ of the sigma to be great. It's focus speed is very good. I have also found the paint flake issue mentioned to be true - I'm losing some paint.

So, why am I buying the Canon & selling off my sigma?

a couple reasons: 1 - the Canon is slightly faster to focus in low light. Now that I've got a camera with reasonable ISO 3200 performance and good 6400 performance I want to start incorporating my 70-200 into my indoor sports shooting more (i've been using prime lenses). The slow down in focusing for the sigma is an issue.

build quality: Sigma EX products are built very well but Canon L products are built just a bit better.

Perception: as a freelance sports photographer I rely on new business to keep going. Much of that business comes from people attending an event I am shooting. My appearance makes an impression on them. That impression is important. Like it or not, people associate white lenses with professional. I don't like the fact. But it is fact. If I wasn't shooting for $$ it wouldn't matter. When I'm shooting for myself I don't try to attract attention and don't care what my gear looks like.

I've always said I think the Sigma gives you 90-95% of what the Canon gives you. The question is: for YOU, is it worth the extra $$ to get that last 5-10%? You can do some outstanding work with the Sigma lens.

For comparison, here are some recent swim galleries I've taken with the sigma lens (sorry for the watermarks and redundant photos but these are galleries for sale for the contract I was working - not the 'best of' shots for portfolio or forum display:

http://www.jagsportsphotos.com/Swimming/438147


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 12:36 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

My 2c...

The Zen finish on the Sigma do tend to flake more easily but underneath it's still black so you don't notice as much. The Canon on the other hand, if the paint get scratched it's black below so it's more B/W noticeable
-> On the Sigma I don't care but on a $5000 L it's hurts a bit - Kind of like a small scratch on a Porsches and many dings on a day to day Honda! :lol::-):G

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 come in many varieties, at least three, with the latest having a very close focusing distance which they call 'Macro' - It kinds of handy IMO... If you do get the Canon, the non-IS is definetely a better (i.e. sharper) version than the IS as it sandwiches between the Sigma and the IS in term of price (only $200 more than the Sigma in the US)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 12:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

JohnG and Spy,

I also am considering the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma for sports with my XTi. Can you guys comment on how that lense will perform in night highshcool baseball games?

I have hade some decent results with my F717, but from very close, now I wont be allowed to get behind the backstop and will be on the bleachers.
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 1:13 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
hgernhardtjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 516
Default

I did not see where anyone above answered your question ... why the big price difference? Simply put, you are comparing anIMAGE STABILIZATION (IS) lens to a Sigma NON-IS lens (at least that is what your links point to).

IS adds significant cost, but provides in the neighborhood of 2 f/stops benefit when hand-holding your camera and lens.

As I fast approach 60, IS is well worth it when the muscles start to shake a bit.


BTW, when you compare apples-to-apples (non-IS to non_IS) you will note Microglobe's price shows only a £150 difference (accounted for by the L-appeal mentioned by others above).
hgernhardtjr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 2:52 PM   #9
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Angel L. wrote:
Quote:
JohnG and Spy,

I also am considering the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma for sports with my XTi. Can you guys comment on how that lense will perform in night highshcool baseball games?

I have hade some decent results with my F717, but from very close, now I wont be allowed to get behind the backstop and will be on the bleachers.
The biggest problem you'll face is 200mm is WAY, WAY too short to shoot night games from the bleachers at the HS level. 200mm is too short to shoot night baseball if you're shooting from ON THE FIELD. Now, of course you'll get infinitely better results than your Fz17 was giving you. But you have to understand these lenses were only designed to focus up to a certain distance. After that distance you start to lose focus accuracy. I've found if you want quality results, 25 yards is about the working limit of a 200mm lens. What that basically means is - if the bleachers are on the third base line you'll be able to shoot the third base line and that's about it - maybe the pitcher. And depending on the fence structure you may get very poor results - i.e. if the fence is high and you're shooting THROUGH it from 10 feet away - forget about it. That will be very poor results indeed. The only way to effectively shoot through the fence is to be within minimum focus distance for a given lens (i.e within say 1.5 feet or whatever the minimum focus distance is for the 70-200).

Not trying to discourage you - only stating that you're not going to get good results at a night game from the stands trying to shoot action 50 yards away from your shooting position through a fence that's 10 feet from your shooting position. So it's a lot of money to spend to still get poor results.

I shoot from on the field with a 300mm lens and it's barely enough to cover the infield of a baseball game.

JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2008, 9:05 PM   #10
spy
Senior Member
 
spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,129
Default

The first thing that came to mind after reading your question Angel L. is that 200mm does not give you enough reach from the bleachers and then I read that John's first comment said the same thing. I would in fact echo everything John mentioned in his post.

A couple things I would add is that if you are sitting with the fence in your line of sight to your subject and you use your flash, the fence will become even more enhanced in your shots and you will be even more extremely disappointed.

The best place to be is off the bleachers and down on the field. When it comes to shooting night time sports and needing reach, we are all very limited as to what is available for us to get these shots. You have to make good with what you have or can get your hands on. Your choices are (1) 70-200, (2) 120 - 300 2.8 sigma, (3) 100 - 400 4 - 5.6 canon.

Talk to your local photography stores to see if they rent canon or sigma lenses and see what zooms they have available. You need as much reach as you can get so entertain renting the 100 - 400mm canon lens. If the game is on a weekend you should be able to get weekend rental deals.

Yes, the 100 - 400 is a 4 to 5.6 aperature and is a slower lens but your sacrificing speed for twice the reach of the 200mm. You can gain some speed back by boosting your ISO's and removing the noise in a noiseware program. You can also shoot a stop or two darker (no more than this) to speed up your shutter and then enhance your photo on your pc through some sort of photoshop or other.

Last consideration would be to rent the 120 - 300 2.8 and add a 1.4 times teleconverter for extra reach. Your aperature may change from 2.8 to around a 3.5 - 4 but it's better than the 5.6 offered by the canon's 100 - 400mm.

Other than that, that's pretty much it for lens choices.
spy 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 4:36 AM.