Steve'sDigicams

Mr_Saginaw · Jan 9, 2005, 11:01 AM

The Sigma 70-200 is my workhorse... besides IS is for sissys :blah: (oh am i going to pay for that!

you guys know i'm just teasing...)

I have no experience with the Canon lens either the f4 or f2.8. Here's what I can tell you. I NEED that extra stop that the 2.8 gives me! Here's something I have noticed. With the DRebel i tend to use a monopod. I shoot vertical 99% of the time and I didn't have at battery grip for the DRebel so I ended up using the monopod for stability. First thing I bought with the 20D is the battery grip. So besides giving me the vertical shutter release it's help give the Sigma a better balance. Couple that with a better ISO1600 and an available ISO 3200 I find myself shooting everything just plain old handheld. Of course the 20D, grip and Sigma make a pretty heft package... by the end of this last meet my arms were pretty tired.

Bottom line is the Sigma is fast both optically and mechanically and I'm extremely happy with the images I get from it. I would not hesitate recommending it...

hth,
john

Scotious · Jan 9, 2005, 8:13 PM

Wow-- I'm very impressed Mr. Saginaw. I'm a newbie to stills, videographer by trade, and have only been in the gym to shoot stills once, and failed miserably, with my Olympus 770, At my nephews wrestling match in Chicago-- a low light, orangish, mercury vaporish place, and I ended up with nothing. These are really impressive. 3200 ISO and where's the noise?

Great job. Here's the best I got, and it's....sad.

Signed, Mr. Ann Arbor

Mr_Saginaw · Jan 10, 2005, 3:38 PM

Scotious wrote:

Quote:

... have only been in the gym to shoot stills once, and failed miserably...

it's might sound cliche but... Been there! Done that!

Well, it's like this... I started shooting gymnastics 3 years ago. I tried doing it with my 35mm Minolta and some old cheap lens i had (read SLOW). The results were absolutely horrible..

So I decided if i wanted good pictures I would need to buy news lens... well if I'm buying new lens then I might as well go digital. So I convinced the wife I really neeeded a DRebel and about another $1,000 for lens... So for about $2,000 I was finally able to get the results I wanted... Then last month I upgraded to the 20D... WOW! For me it was well worth the cost! This camera is just fantastic...

BTW... I used to work in A^2... surprised you'ld even look at a subject that had "Michigan State" in it! LOL!

john

minutephotos.com · Jan 10, 2005, 7:24 PM

Thanks guys for all the info. I really don't have a choice any more. The Canon 70-200 F4L seems to be on the discontinued list. It is not available at any of the Ritz or Wolf Camera stores in the bay area. I don't know if it is still available on the Internet or not, but in any case I have decided on the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 because of the teleconverters 1.4 and 2.0 autofocus works with both but not with Canon f4l.

minutephotos.com · Jan 16, 2005, 10:51 PM

O.K. So my dreams og one day ownong an L-series lens have been shattered:sad:.

I went and picked up the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX. I then rented the Canon 70-200 F2.8L.

I did some comparison shots, bot at F2.8, 200mm, 1/15, ISO 100. The Canon came out a little bit sharper in most tests but not all. My tripod was too weak for these big lenses so I may have been getting a little camera shake.

Here is the test from the Sigma

minutephotos.com · Jan 16, 2005, 10:54 PM

Here is the test from the Canon 70-200 F2.8.

I have decided to get the Sigma 2.8 because i was going to get the Canon 70-200 F4L, but now I see I would rather have a 2.8 lens. At F4.0 I couldn't tell any difference at all between Canon 2.8 and Sigma 2.8, only at the extremes did it become a little noticable.

Golfer · Jan 17, 2005, 6:17 PM

Minutephotos; I think you made a good choice with the Sigma. I would think the 2.8 will work much better for you than the Canon 4.0. I really love my Canon 2.8, but think the Sigma is up to the task.

Not that statement by Saginaw [IS is for sissys] boy that really made me bristle. LOL Actually I really like the IS for how I use my cam. It could be well argued that the IS may not be that necessary for up to 200. Obviously depends on shutter speed which Minutephotos really helped with the faster lense.

Best wishes with the new lense.

minutephotos.com · Jan 30, 2005, 1:55 AM

It has a really hard choice. I would have loved to get the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, but had to get what I could afford. Hopefully, by generatering better shots with the Sigma I will one day be able to afford Canon L-series IS lenses. I believe IS is a great feature as the F2.8 lenses can be very heavy and hard to hold.

Jan 9, 2005, 8:13 PM	#12
Scotious Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 203	Wow-- I'm very impressed Mr. Saginaw. I'm a newbie to stills, videographer by trade, and have only been in the gym to shoot stills once, and failed miserably, with my Olympus 770, At my nephews wrestling match in Chicago-- a low light, orangish, mercury vaporish place, and I ended up with nothing. These are really impressive. 3200 ISO and where's the noise? Great job. Here's the best I got, and it's....sad. Signed, Mr. Ann Arbor Attached Images

Jan 16, 2005, 10:51 PM	#15
minutephotos.com Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 344	O.K. So my dreams og one day ownong an L-series lens have been shattered:sad:. I went and picked up the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX. I then rented the Canon 70-200 F2.8L. I did some comparison shots, bot at F2.8, 200mm, 1/15, ISO 100. The Canon came out a little bit sharper in most tests but not all. My tripod was too weak for these big lenses so I may have been getting a little camera shake. Here is the test from the Sigma Attached Images

Jan 16, 2005, 10:54 PM	#16
minutephotos.com Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 344	Here is the test from the Canon 70-200 F2.8. I have decided to get the Sigma 2.8 because i was going to get the Canon 70-200 F4L, but now I see I would rather have a 2.8 lens. At F4.0 I couldn't tell any difference at all between Canon 2.8 and Sigma 2.8, only at the extremes did it become a little noticable. Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 9, 2005, 11:01 AM	#11
Mr_Saginaw Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 552	The Sigma 70-200 is my workhorse... besides IS is for sissys :blah: (oh am i going to pay for that! you guys know i'm just teasing...) I have no experience with the Canon lens either the f4 or f2.8. Here's what I can tell you. I NEED that extra stop that the 2.8 gives me! Here's something I have noticed. With the DRebel i tend to use a monopod. I shoot vertical 99% of the time and I didn't have at battery grip for the DRebel so I ended up using the monopod for stability. First thing I bought with the 20D is the battery grip. So besides giving me the vertical shutter release it's help give the Sigma a better balance. Couple that with a better ISO1600 and an available ISO 3200 I find myself shooting everything just plain old handheld. Of course the 20D, grip and Sigma make a pretty heft package... by the end of this last meet my arms were pretty tired. Bottom line is the Sigma is fast both optically and mechanically and I'm extremely happy with the images I get from it. I would not hesitate recommending it... hth, john

Jan 10, 2005, 7:24 PM	#14
minutephotos.com Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 344	Thanks guys for all the info. I really don't have a choice any more. The Canon 70-200 F4L seems to be on the discontinued list. It is not available at any of the Ritz or Wolf Camera stores in the bay area. I don't know if it is still available on the Internet or not, but in any case I have decided on the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 because of the teleconverters 1.4 and 2.0 autofocus works with both but not with Canon f4l.

Jan 17, 2005, 6:17 PM	#17
Golfer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 276	Minutephotos; I think you made a good choice with the Sigma. I would think the 2.8 will work much better for you than the Canon 4.0. I really love my Canon 2.8, but think the Sigma is up to the task. Not that statement by Saginaw [IS is for sissys] boy that really made me bristle. LOL Actually I really like the IS for how I use my cam. It could be well argued that the IS may not be that necessary for up to 200. Obviously depends on shutter speed which Minutephotos really helped with the faster lense. Best wishes with the new lense.

Jan 30, 2005, 1:55 AM	#18
minutephotos.com Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 344	It has a really hard choice. I would have loved to get the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, but had to get what I could afford. Hopefully, by generatering better shots with the Sigma I will one day be able to afford Canon L-series IS lenses. I believe IS is a great feature as the F2.8 lenses can be very heavy and hard to hold.