Hey folks I'm looking around for a decent telephoto, basically its come down to either: Canon 70-200 L f/4 (non-IS)(£360 on ebay) or Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 (£470 on ebay) Now I've heard nothing but good things about the canon's sharpness and build quality, but the Sigma has that extra stop, which may come in handy at some time as I do a lot of band photography. Any opinions either way?
I can't say for 70-200, but on my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, what you gain with the extra stop you loose with sharpness. After my experience I would be tempted to go with the Canon.
On Nikon's F mount, I have heard and experienced nothing but good from the Sigma. Not as good as the Nikon, but you do expect that. 2 co workers use them and I have borrowed it a few times, to the point where I seriously considered buying one. Only the fact that an updated Nikon is expected kept me from pulling the trigger. Softness and IQ depend a lot on your sample. Often people go through 2 or 3 before getting one that is spot on.
I can't speak for the Sigma, other than stating that Canon's equivalent 70-200/2.8 costs about twice as much. From what I hear, Sigma's quality control is rather hit-or-miss, which could be a big problem with an eBay lens as compared to something getting. You mention band photography... if that's really an appropriate focal length for you, Canon's 135mm f/2.0L may be a better choice. Vers recommended it to me when I was looking into 70-200 lenses as I happened to be shooting an event shortly after but it was more of a one-off thing as compared to a regular deal and as such I wanted something a bit more versatile. It'll be stretching your budget a bit, but it's right in the middle of that focal length range and has TWO stops advantage over the Canon f/4 and a full stop over the Sigma f/2.8.
I missed the bit about the band stuff. Are you using an APS sized sensor? If so, are you shooting from in front of the stage or the wings? Then the 70-200 might be a bit long for you. In that particular case I would point you to the 50-150/2.8, which works out to the 70-200ish FOV on an APS body. I have had good results from mine. cheaper and lighter. Again, my use has been on the F mount.
Yeah its a 400d (APS-C), I think I'm more inclined to the canon at the moment, and it should be a safer purchase from ebay if its less likely to go wrong (although I haven't had any problems with either of the Sigma lenses I have at the moment). For band work I'm always in front of the stage, but I really meant there could be one or two situations where I am not and need a longer lens. Main subject areas where I need a telephoto is for action stuff (bikes and motorsport mainly) and general distance subjects.
I can tell you straight away that f/4 will be a bad choice for any low light intensive shooting. As for the Sigma 70-200...its known to be an excellent lens in some cases, but it does fall short in low light performance and AF speed/accuracy, although this may be due to product variation of which there is a lot (QC is not Sigma's strong suit). Honestly, and coming from someone who shoots very frequently in low light without flash, I'd look into some fast primes (50 f/1.8/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2 although the 135 may be out of your budget and may not fit your shooting style based on working distance preferences BUT is known to be one of the best stage photography lenses available without breaking the bank). JJ also made a good suggestion...The Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 but again poor QC can make or break it.
Errrrr, I think you got me wrong there. My point was that while I have used the lenses, I have used them on the Nikon mount. Sigma makes them both for Nikon and Canon, with similar performance. Not that you should switch cameras. But all of Sigma's lenses are spotty in the QC department. So if it were me, I would not use Ebay; instead use a reputable shop where you can go back and return the lens as many times as you need till you get a good one. Anyone who sells Sigma is used to this by now.
And I think you had me wrong there as well, I meant I am more leaning towards the canon lens (not a hope in hells chance you could ever convince me to buy a nikon ). The main issue with buying from a shop for the sigma is, for example that Jessops are currently listing the lens for £799 (Canon is at £449). The 135mm as Firehed suggested is a pretty nice looking lens actually, but it is a bit pricey, probably something I could buy later on if I find myself actually needing it (I'm just trying to plan for the future, would be a shame to spend more money than nessesary..).
Holy crap they rip you guys off. With the current exchange rates, the Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS should only cost you £300 or so (it's $600 at Amazon, about the same at others). The Sigma/2.8 lists $800, £400ish (and the 135/2.0 at $1000/£500). I'll ship any of those your way for 5%+shipping if you like, and you'll still save a fortune off retail.
Ohhhh Pleeaaassseeee....Nikon is not invincible either, so lets not get into the whole which is best argument here I could just as easily have posted This Link or this one. I ain't gunna lie though, the MKIII debacle claimed some lives...good thing I couldn't afford one at that time.
Can't speak for the Sigma but the Canon is a superb sharp and fast boy. However if you'll be shooting low light i'd go for that extra stop on the Sigma, make sure you get a good copy.
Just suck it up and get the Canon 2.8L IS. It all comes out in the wash. When did I ever say anything about which is best? here or in any post ever made here? He teased me, and I teased back.
I've got the Canon (70-200 F4 non-IS L) and I'm very pleased with it. I used at my brothers wedding to get some close-ups from a distance during the reception (outside, bright sunny day) without people noticing. Recently I also used it at a friendly soccer tournement that I organised with friends. The quality is stunning. I don't use this range that often, if I did use it more then I do right now then I would probably switch to the Canon F2.8 L version (maybe IS aswell). Michiel
I got my 70-200 F4L at B&H for $489, then a rebate on top of that making the lens around £230 at the time. They really rip us off over here
How on earth did that work? The only 400L anywhere vaguely near that price at B+H is the f/5.6 at $1100, and anything in the f/4 range is well over $2k.
