Canon L 70-200 vs. Sigma 70-200?

[ChrisAdval]

Looking for the pros and cons between these two lenses, they seem in the same price ranges. I want the f/2.8 for obvious reasons, but I don't have any L lenses and not sure if I should go for the L lens or the sigma f/2.8...




Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens 2578A002 B&H Photo Video




Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579-101 B&H

[inkista]

Sigma's gonna be bigger and heavier and not as sharp. Also, not as future proof.

Here' s a comparison of the two lenses @200mm, f/4:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Lens Image Quality
(mouseover to swap between the two).

Remember the Canon's at a disadvantage here, as it's wide open, while the Sigma is stopped down from wide open by a stop, and it still outperforms the Sigma.

[ChrisAdval]

interesting, so now the question for me is if I want the wider lens and sacrifice sharpness and get maybe a nicer bokeh....

[3bayjunkie]

Originally Posted by ChrisAdval

interesting, so now the question for me is if I want the wider lens and sacrifice sharpness and get maybe a nicer bokeh....

They both have the same aperture, you aren't going to get better bokeh just because the lens isn't as sharp. You will just get images that are more fuzzy than the Canon lens. you should just get the canon lens...

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by 3bayjunkie

They both have the same aperture, you aren't going to get better bokeh just because the lens isn't as sharp. You will just get images that are more fuzzy than the Canon lens. you should just get the canon lens...

thanks guys for the helpful suggestions!

[ceremus]

Unless he misposted, he's comparing the Sigma f/2.8 to the Canon f/4, not the Canon f/2.8. Biiiiig difference in price. If he has the budget for the f/2.8L, no question, get the Canon.

As for the bokeh question, remember the aperture is only one part of getting a shallow depth of field, certainly a larger aperture will do it, but remember that closeness to your subject and focal length play just as important a role. Especially when you're dealing with telephoto lengths of 100-200mm, you don't need a 2.8 aperture to effectively throw the background out of focus, even more so if you're not terribly far away from your focused subject.

Now I don't own a telephoto f/2.8 lens, someone that does can probably speak to this better than I, but it seems to me when you're dealing in the telephoto range a wide aperture is a more important consideration in terms of stopping action and functioning in low light than it is about getting a narrow DoF.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by ceremus

Unless he misposted, he's comparing the Sigma f/2.8 to the Canon f/4, not the Canon f/2.8. Biiiiig difference in price. If he has the budget for the f/2.8L, no question, get the Canon.

As for the bokeh question, remember the aperture is only one part of getting a shallow depth of field, certainly a larger aperture will do it, but remember that closeness to your subject and focal length play just as important a role. Especially when you're dealing with telephoto lengths of 100-200mm, you don't need a 2.8 aperture to effectively throw the background out of focus, even more so if you're not terribly far away from your focused subject.

Now I don't own a telephoto f/2.8 lens, someone that does can probably speak to this better than I, but it seems to me when you're dealing in the telephoto range a wide aperture is a more important consideration in terms of stopping action and functioning in low light than it is about getting a narrow DoF.

QFT. This. ^^^

If you're budget-limited, and you need the f/2.8, the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 might still be worth the slightly lower performance. Similar to the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if the EF-S 17-55/2.8 is out of your budget.

f/4 is not really fast enough to "freeze" action in a lot of low light situations without using 1600 and above iso settings. A larger max. aperture gives you better flexibility in terms of lighting conditions.

Another possibility, if you don't need zoom (unlikely) is the EF 200mm f/2.8L USM.

[gturner]

I own the F4 L and the 2.8 IS L in canon.

The F4 is faster focusing and sharper from F4 than the bigger heavier 2.8 and if you are using it outdoors or with good light, you will have no complaints. This includes studio portraits.

HOWEVER.
If you shoot in anything less than ideal light, the big brother does things the smaller one is just not capable of.

As for the Sigma. If you can afford the Canon, it is not even close. If money is an issue, I would look at the F4 IS L then then 2.8 L, the the sigma

[ishootRAW]

Here is a video. Although it is 2.8 vs 2.8.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS HSM vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM - YouTube

I should also mention that Sigma makes a 2.8 IS version for $1200.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by ceremus

Unless he misposted, he's comparing the Sigma f/2.8 to the Canon f/4, not the Canon f/2.8. Biiiiig difference in price. If he has the budget for the f/2.8L, no question, get the Canon.

As for the bokeh question, remember the aperture is only one part of getting a shallow depth of field, certainly a larger aperture will do it, but remember that closeness to your subject and focal length play just as important a role. Especially when you're dealing with telephoto lengths of 100-200mm, you don't need a 2.8 aperture to effectively throw the background out of focus, even more so if you're not terribly far away from your focused subject.

Now I don't own a telephoto f/2.8 lens, someone that does can probably speak to this better than I, but it seems to me when you're dealing in the telephoto range a wide aperture is a more important consideration in terms of stopping action and functioning in low light than it is about getting a narrow DoF.

I was talking about the 70-200 Sigma f/2.8 vs. the 70-200 Canon L f/4, same price ranges.