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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 11, 2005, 12:24 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
rob_strain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Fort Knox, Ky.
Posts: 282
Default

I am considering a new lens for my drebel and have narrowed it down to 2. Either the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX or the Canon 70-200 f/4L. My price range is around $600-$800 so if anyone knows of a better lens in this range let me know. I shoot mostly documentary style things in low light.
rob_strain is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 11, 2005, 6:27 AM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Rob

All I can say is this: Don't judge a book by its cover!

You already have the EF500DG Super, It's cheaper and much more useful than an equally priced 420EX (or a higher priced 550EX) - The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX is somewhat similar: It won't have the look or 'feel' of a white L, instead it has a non-scratch soft black ZEN finish, but most of us here had amazing results with that lens:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...49&forum_id=11


If you can live with an f/4, a better lens would be the Sigma 100-300 f/4 - It's super sharp! :idea:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel
... and still good with a 1.4x TC (ie 420mm @ f/5.6)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 7:51 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

IMHO, I would suggest the Sigma - you are getting more for your money than the Canon. You're getting the extra stop which could be critical in your low-light shooting. You also get a tripod collar included ($120 extra for the Canon). You can get the Sigma for around $700 from Abes of Maine or Digital Foto Club or $800 from B&H if you prefer. But the bottom line is the lense produces quality results on par with the Canon 2.8 (not just the 4.0). But it's also a heavier lense than the Canon 4.0. You also have the added advantage of using a 1.4x teleconverter on the Sigma and STILL have f 4.0. The only (very minor) knock I have on my sigma is the placement of the zoom ring - it's right on top of the tripod collar - so if you have the collar on, zomming takes a little getting used to. Solved that easily enough by removing the collar when I know I will shoot hand held. Good luck - I'm not sure you can make a bad decision here!
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 8:18 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG

The Sigma is only heavier as compared to an f/4 - Both Canon f/2.8's have comparable weight as the Sigma, this has to do with the larger optic to collect more light. Remember f/ is the ratio of the diameter of the lens opening over its focal lenght?

I agree that the lower cost of the f/4 is somewhat offset by the price of the tripod collar(if you need it)... - Guess where the zoom rings are on the Canon's?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 9:24 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
rob_strain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Fort Knox, Ky.
Posts: 282
Default

Ok, I was leaning more towards the Sigma, but I wanted to hear from people that have used it. Thanks for your input.
rob_strain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2005, 6:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Mr_Saginaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 552
Default

You already made your mind up but just in case you have second thought... I love my Sigma 70-200 EX... it's my workhorse...

Mr_Saginaw 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 10:57 PM.