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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 27, 2005, 1:20 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
bigboyhf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
Default

I am looking into getting a 70 - 200 telephoto and these two lenses meet that requirement yet are quite different. A very big concern is weight. It seems that the Sigma lens is twice as heavy?? I am not sure if the extra stop is worth carrying around a lens that heavy. I do have a Canon 580 flash for indoors and I think most of my outdoor pics here in FL are fairly well lit. I do take pics of my dogs which requires a fast shutter speed, but my 20 D can generally handle ISO 800 well. Both lenses seem to have very good optics and reviews have been generally favorable for each one.

So I am looking for opinions as to whether the 2.8 on the Sigma outweighs the lighter weight on the Canon. Both are priced in the same range thoughI am leaning towards the Canon... Or are there other candidates to look at as well?

H
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 27, 2005, 1:52 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
SlapNTickleJr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 151
Default

Buy the Sigma...it's a lovely lens. It is not heavy either, not even a little. Image quality of the L vs. the EX is pretty much the same, but you have a useable 2.8 with the Sigma andit's a little sharper than the Canon @ f/4 because it's already stopped down one full stop. Either way, you can't go wrong. Do you need a 2.8 lens? If you do, then the choice is obvious.
SlapNTickleJr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 2:00 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

I was faced with the same choice about a year ago. I chose the Sigma and haven't looked back. It is a great lens, and IMO speed rules when it comes to lenses. If you ever decide to get a teleconverter for one of these, a 1.4 converter takes the canon to f/5.6 but the Sigmais now f/4.0, same speed as the canon with out the TC, and a lot more range.
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 5:08 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
bigboyhf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
Default

Canon = 705 g / 24 oz

Sigma = 1220 g / 43 oz

Almost twice as heavy. I guess I have to bring my camera over the Ritz and put one on to judge the weight. Are you guys using a tripod?? I will be generally handholding this lens.

H
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 7:09 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 182
Default

bigboyhf wrote:
Quote:
Canon = 705 g / 24 oz

Sigma = 1220 g / 43 oz

Almost twice as heavy. I guess I have to bring my camera over the Ritz and put one on to judge the weight. Are you guys using a tripod?? I will be generally handholding this lens.

H
I use my Sigma 70-200mm all the time, everyday. Especially since I started my business, http://tmillerphoto.com and since I'm the Asst. Yearbook Editor for my college.

The 2.8 DOF is beautiful. Just check out my portrait galleries and you be the judge.

I'll even email you a full sized version if you want.

-tlmiller10
tlmiller10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 7:12 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5
Default

bigboyhf wrote:
Quote:
Canon = 705 g / 24 oz

Sigma = 1220 g / 43 oz

Almost twice as heavy. I guess I have to bring my camera over the Ritz and put one on to judge the weight. Are you guys using a tripod?? I will be generally handholding this lens.

H
The F4 on a 20D isn't too unmanagable. The 2.8 canon on the other hand is quite heavy - definately going to take some getting used to for a handhold of any amount of time.. and its 1310g so..
nsane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2005, 9:02 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Caboose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 625
Default

bigboyhf wrote:
Quote:
Canon = 705 g / 24 oz

Sigma = 1220 g / 43 oz

Almost twice as heavy. I guess I have to bring my camera over the Ritz and put one on to judge the weight. Are you guys using a tripod?? I will be generally handholding this lens.

H
I handhold mine most of the time, although I sometimes mount it on a monopod. This shot was taken from the back of a ski boat at about 40mph handheld. Oh, and no one die that day.
Attached Images
 
Caboose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 12:51 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

nsane wrote:
Quote:
The F4 on a 20D isn't too unmanagable. The 2.8 canon on the other hand is quite heavy - definately going to take some getting used to for a handhold of any amount of time.. and its 1310g so..
This should summarize it all!

In another word an f/2.8 lens is twice as bright as an f/4 -> as the opening of the optical elements are twice as large -> which translate into twice the weight (and this has nothing to do with Canon vs Sigma glass being lighter or heavier).


Can someone shows me a lens with a better bokeh? :-)
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX (when wide opened):








Is the autofocus fast (you tell me) or quiet ? :blah:
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX with HSM:




... All handheld :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 10:39 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
bigboyhf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 165
Default

Sending me the flower was a nice jesture. But then you ruined it by flipping me the bird!!

J/K Nice pics! I am going to try to track down a local Camera shop that has these lenses in stock. I know the 2.8 will give me more versatility with my photo's, but I just want to make sure I can lug that weight around. To give you an example: I have a 1911 pistol that weighs in at 36 oz empty. Add the ammo and it is pretty close to 43 oz or approx the weight of the Sigma lens. I really don't like carrying that around on my hip all day and have opted to go with a Kahr PM9 which is a polymer frame 9mm weighing about 28 oz loaded. Or about the same weight as the Canon lens. Now I know that carrying a camera is a bit different than a gun, but the weight does become an issue at some point. The advantage with a camera is that you can put it down and take it off your neck or shoulder periodically. You don't get that luxury with a gun... I think Ritz has a 10 day tryout period with their products so I may just buy one and give it a trial run. I just have to remember which one I am shooting...camera or gun, camera or gun...should be easy :?

H
bigboyhf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2005, 11:06 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Does the gun come with the holster? :-)
-> The Sigma comes with everything included:
o fitted case
o lens shade
o tripod collar

What extra do you have to get with the f/4?
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 10:05 AM.