Sigma 70-300 APO DG vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L
 

While browsing through my photo-archive, I noticed that I had taken almost the same pic last year with a 350D + Sigma 70-300 and a few weeks ago with 30D + EF 70-200 f/2.8 L. Both were taken wide open and on the long end. Sigma on the left and Canon on the right. Pics can be clicked for a larger version:


http://www.xs4all.nl/~akoevoet/GoT/sigma_vs_L_sm.jpg

And for a crop of both

http://www.xs4all.nl/~akoevoet/GoT/s..._L_crop_sm.jpg

Non-scientifical test ofcourse..... :)

seems that would be about the difference i ought to expect between my (sigma made) lens, and my up-coming L series... simply staggering!

BTW, what shutter speed idd you shoot each at?

You can buy more than 5 Sigma's for the price of tha Canon, so heel yeah there should be a difference. :D

Sigma shot is at f/5.6 and 1/500s, Canon shot at f/2.8 and 1/2000s.....

As expected, Sigma is much crappier.. you pay for what you get :bah:
thanks for proving it once again :)

the more i read about the F2.8 70-200 vs. F2.8 70-200 IS, the more i wonder if the IS is really the right option...

I'm trying to figure out just which lens i ought to get first... but I think Is is nearly a must in what i shoot mostly

I'm doing fine so far without IS, but if I decide to exchange mine for an IS, I'm sure I'll get a lot of my invested money back. :)

yeah but if you look close the focus points are diff. so of course the left image is "blurry" around the eyes. the one on the left appears to be more towards the cats ears where as the right image is more at the eyes. :bah: just my opinion. still better then what i have :)

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is very good. I have one and am very happy with it. Are you refering to all Sigma lenses or a specific lens :?:

Why is IS a must? Use a tripod or shoot with faster shutter speeds. The F2.8 non-IS gives you a lot of latitude to use really high speeds.

I wanted one, but it meant an additional $600 investment over a non-IS lens. Photography is just a amateur hobby to me and I need to watch my expenditure here - it is very expensive hobby :)

Sigma lenses are only "good enough" IMO which isn't actually good enough for what i am doing these days.
what IS does that I cant is this:

Improve low light shots
create sharper panning shots ( i love panning shots)
elminate shake that a tripod is too tall for some of the shots I do, or not tall enough ;)

IS really is amazing, i highly recomend you at least go to your local camera store and check it out.. .its frickin witchcraft!

actually, some lenses (like sigma/quantaray) aren't nearly as sharp even in perfect focus ;)

I was thinking about the same question, I've heard nothing but good about the sigma 70-200 f2.8, the only draw back is the quality of the material used, tahts about it, but optics wyze it is comparable to the Canon L 70-200 f2.8.

Here are the reviews on the Sigma lens: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

And those from a Canon 70-200 non-IS lens http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

And finally Canon 70-200 IS lens http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

Buy whatever you like ... its your money ... but the Sigma doesnt do to badly compared with the Canon lens though and is about $200-300 cheaper than the non-IS version :)

i've played with Sigma, and Canon L lenses... as our resident expert has pointed out, that is how different the lenses are... the differnce is that severe.... and of course, you dont notice it until you compare left and right.

Well, for sure the top end Sigma lenses are better than the simpler models, but compared to the Canon or Nikon Equivalent, Sigma never matches the quality, speed and so on, IMO

As for the IS issue, for sure with a 2.8 lense you can play with aperture to have quicker shutter speed,but 2.8 is sometimes just not what you want, especially when going above 100mm where you'd want a deeper depth of field (to have the whole car focused for instance). 200mm is still not terrible, but for sure in some situations, especially on a cloudy day with polarizer filter, you already need an IS. I always carry a tripod too of course, but there are situations where you just can't use it, or long meetings where carrying around a tripod, even a light Manfrotto or whatever, is too complicated.
So IS is definitely a must IMO too. Above 200mm for sure, but IMO when you are investing in a 200mm lense it's probably better to do a bit more efforts and get an IS too, just in case.

You guys ought to get the best lenses .. y'all seem to be very serious about photography. :)