Review - Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS vs. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM

[twofruitz]

Hello fellow Ausphotographers, just thought I'd help out where possible and do a brief review on these two lenses. I hope this helps with your decision.


Lens Sample Archives.
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=138395)

Sigma 70-200 EX HSM (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144808)


Dimensions.
Data from DPreview.
Canon 70-200
(http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)51.9 oz(1470g)3.4 x 7.7"(86 x 197mm)77mm
Sigma 70-200
48.3 oz(1370g)3.4 x 7.3"(87 x 184mm)77mm

Sharpness Tests.

Canon 40d - ISO 100 - AV mode - Tripod - 10 Sec Delay - Live View Focus - Unedited RAW-JPG conversion.


At 2.8 the Canon clearly beats the Sigma in sharpness and contrast, however past f5.6 there is almost no difference. The Canon's colour reproduction is much better at all apertures, however some colour detail is lost at smaller apertures. Tests below.70MM
http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/2870.jpg

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/5670.jpg

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/1170.jpg



200mm

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/28200.jpg

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/11200.jpg





Brokeh


Almost identical in every photo I took, Canon's contrast is still much betterhttp://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/test/2000.jpg



Mount and Build Quality
The Canon's build quality and "presence" is far beyond that of the Sigma. It's mount is made of higher quality material and fits better, something important if keeping the rain out of the camera is needed.

Street Price
Sigma - $799US - $999 AU.
Canon - $1699US - $2599AU.

Verdict
With the price difference to large, amatures and semi-pros looking to shoot with a quality telephoto will find the Sigma more than enough. If your a good photographer, or just plain rich, the Canon provides some slight extra sharpness and IQ at a big price. For me, I use a tripod/monopod where I can, and have stable hands, so the IS feature will never come into the equation.

If your shooting soccer in a cave, and cannot bring a tripod because you and the other thirty photographers in the sardine can have no room, get the Canon! :)

The Sigma is half the price, but certainly 4/5ths the lens.




Disclaimer
Nikon photographers may get overly excited when you pop out the white lens. Use with caution.

[MrJorge]

Thanks for this little comparison. Read a lot of reviews and it is nice to see them side by side.

[nisstrust]

Thanks for the review. I have just started contemplating the purchase of the canon 70-200 2.8 or 2.8IS. I'll be using it for indoor low light conditions mostly so IQ and something that is tack sharp at 2.8 is pretty important. I have terrible shaky hands syndrome which i am working on so IS is also important. I like the 2.8 IS :)

[Lines]

Thanks for the great review. Would be interesting to see how the sigma does in comparison with the Canon f4 IS version seeing that they're priced about the same, give or take a couple hundred.

Nath

[BLWNHR]

The Sigma is half the price, but certainly 4/5ths the lens.


True to what I've found comparing the 70-200 VR and Sigma on my D300.

[PaulMac]

This lens is my #1 wedding lens. IMO it is by a long shot the best portrait zoom lens on the planet.
It's well built, very very quick to focus and also quiet. Weight is an issue for some people but you do get used to it. I know plenty of female photographers that use this lens on a 5D or 40D body wit a grip and after a while it's just what you get used to.

Don't think you can skimp out on the Sigma and get the results that this lens will give you because it just won't happen. The IS is also a god send.... Tripods make me feel like I'm in a straight jacket and the IS will ( if you have a reasonably steady hand ) let you take a sharp shot at 200mm at 1/20th.

If you can afford it get it. If you are in two minds then save up some more pennies first.

You will find many shots with this lens on my web site.

Cheers
paul

[finn]

A good comparison.

The Canon is definitely sharper and has more saturated colours - that's what I like.

If you like that and have the money - get it (I'm still debating over to 70-200 f/2.8L IS/non-IS ;>)

[HappySnapper]

Hi twofruitz,

Thanks for the review, some great photographs for us to compare there !!

I was thinking though, while you (very correctly) mention the significiant price differential against the Canon beast, would not a more fair comparison be to the non-IS Canon lens ?

Given the premium Canon charge for their IS lens compared to their non-IS lens, the price differential between the Sigma and the non-IS would be no-where near as the price differential you mention when comparing the Sigma Vs the IS Canon lens.

Once again, thanks for the review,

Just my $A 0.02


HappySnapper.

[R1titan]

Good review and comparison shots....

The Canon at 70mm wide open has such impressive contrast and color saturation...
just wondering why this contrast deteriorates when stopped down?

[para]

[Street Price
Sigma - $799US - $999 AU.
Canon - $1699US - $2599AU.


Not sure on sigma but with the price increase you are looking around $2900-3200au now

[para]

not sure on the sigma new price on the canon is $2900-3100 ouch

[gatekeeper]

the sharpness is definitely better in the canon, sigma do have massive QC issues tho so that may just be an alignment issue in your copy.
paulmac: "handheld 200mm at 1/20th" really? even with IS thats still very slow, i might give it a try if i was resting on something, but flat out standing up and taking a shot handheld at those specs would be pretty tough, also you are also taking a shot of something stationary i assume heh.

[Peter]

Apart from the image quality there are some big issues that carry a bit more weight.

The build of the canon lens not only gives the owner a lot more confidence in using the lens it will last longer and maintain a higher resale value.

Comparing the price of these two makes no sense as one is built for proffessional photography standard and one is not.

[edenconnell]

I use the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM and love it

[arthurking83]

.....
Comparing the price of these two makes no sense as one is built for proffessional photography standard and one is not.

SO!.... are you saying that the Canon is not built for professional use? :p

The assumption that only Canon(or Nikon, or anyone else!!) make 'professional' use lenses is completely false, and most photographers will tell you that the most professional lenses won't carry the name Canon (nor Nikon).

From what I can see(in these samples) is that the Sigma @ f/5.6 make a very compelling argument against choosing the Canon, but then again we don't make those kinds of choices based on a few sample images now, do we?

As for build... I couldn't see anything wrong with the quality of the Sigma, and I think that anyone that assumes the Sigma is lacking in that area, is blinded by name branding(gear snobbery) for the sake of name brand loyalty, and in reality no other reason!

As for this notion that third party 'pro quality' lenses not maintaining a high resale value(compared to their genuine manufacturer competitors!!).... it's utter rubbish!

Once it's been proven(with a few factual statistics).... I'll retract that comment, but it sounds too much like re-iterating the same 'ol garbage that someone else said somewhere else on the net(but is also yet to prove it).

My bet is that they maintain a roughly similar level of devaluation over a similar period, taking into account a similar level of use/abuse.

If that was to be somehow proven, it actually makes the third party lens less of an actual hit in the pocket(in terms of raw dollars) as the initial purchase price was so much lower.

so as an example: say 75% resale value for the Canon and 70% retained value for the Sigma.. a S/H Canon is now worth roughly $2K, and the Sigma may be $900.
You lost approx $600 on the resale of the Canon, whereas Joe Smart only loses about $300.

Would you seriously risk a saving of only $300 for a S/H Canon, with no warranty and a more probable fault to deal with(why is the seller selling?? :confused013 ), whereas with the purchase of the Sigma, the most likely reason for selling is the false assumption that an upgrade to the Canon, or Nikon equivalent will give better results!

Resale values are a silly reason to purchase a lens anyhow.. if you want an investment, get shares in blue chip stocks.. if you want good value for money camera gear, weigh up all the options before committing.

One reason to consider the upgrade would be the optical stabilisation feature(and I've been weighing that up for my Tamron to Nikon switch one day). For no other reason other than I want VR. Build quality and lens performance is up to par, more than enough and I'd have no hesitation in taking the Tammy(or Sigma, from what I've seen of it) anywhere!
So much so, that I actually do that... I take it everywhere!


.. and yes it's still in one piece :D
I'd just wished that Tamron was smarter, and had their VC(optical stabilisation) system in their 70-200/2.8, instead of the consumer grade lenses only!

[tntman]

I just got a Sigma 70-200mm EX F2.8 II after a long think. For me, $ is an issue, it was either purchase a single Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS new for about $2500 locally or have 2 Sigma lens for the same cost. The other lens I got is the Sigma 120-400mm OS EX.

I have now received both lens, I just can't be happier in owning both these lens. I think value for money, the Sigma wins hands down. Image quality is up there with the Canon, I have a 1D MKIII and it works just fine.

[Peter]

SO!.... are you saying that the Canon is not built for professional use? :p

The assumption that only Canon(or Nikon, or anyone else!!) make 'professional' use lenses is completely false, and most photographers will tell you that the most professional lenses won't carry the name Canon (nor Nikon).

From what I can see(in these samples) is that the Sigma @ f/5.6 make a very compelling argument against choosing the Canon, but then again we don't make those kinds of choices based on a few sample images now, do we?

As for build... I couldn't see anything wrong with the quality of the Sigma, and I think that anyone that assumes the Sigma is lacking in that area, is blinded by name branding(gear snobbery) for the sake of name brand loyalty, and in reality no other reason!

As for this notion that third party 'pro quality' lenses not maintaining a high resale value(compared to their genuine manufacturer competitors!!).... it's utter rubbish!

Once it's been proven(with a few factual statistics).... I'll retract that comment, but it sounds too much like re-iterating the same 'ol garbage that someone else said somewhere else on the net(but is also yet to prove it).

My bet is that they maintain a roughly similar level of devaluation over a similar period, taking into account a similar level of use/abuse.

If that was to be somehow proven, it actually makes the third party lens less of an actual hit in the pocket(in terms of raw dollars) as the initial purchase price was so much lower.

so as an example: say 75% resale value for the Canon and 70% retained value for the Sigma.. a S/H Canon is now worth roughly $2K, and the Sigma may be $900.
You lost approx $600 on the resale of the Canon, whereas Joe Smart only loses about $300.

Would you seriously risk a saving of only $300 for a S/H Canon, with no warranty and a more probable fault to deal with(why is the seller selling?? :confused013 ), whereas with the purchase of the Sigma, the most likely reason for selling is the false assumption that an upgrade to the Canon, or Nikon equivalent will give better results!

Resale values are a silly reason to purchase a lens anyhow.. if you want an investment, get shares in blue chip stocks.. if you want good value for money camera gear, weigh up all the options before committing.

One reason to consider the upgrade would be the optical stabilisation feature(and I've been weighing that up for my Tamron to Nikon switch one day). For no other reason other than I want VR. Build quality and lens performance is up to par, more than enough and I'd have no hesitation in taking the Tammy(or Sigma, from what I've seen of it) anywhere!
So much so, that I actually do that... I take it everywhere!


.. and yes it's still in one piece :D
I'd just wished that Tamron was smarter, and had their VC(optical stabilisation) system in their 70-200/2.8, instead of the consumer grade lenses only!

I was speaking from experience that I have arthurking83.

I take my lenses out into the bush for wildlife and from my experience I have had a sigma fall apart on me and then to get reairs it had to be sent overseas. From my experience the sigma cannot handle the same amount of tough going as the canon lenses.

The reson I pay more money for the canon is not because of brand loyalty or snobbery but because from my experience the canon lenes will get the job done and it will be available for the next job.

Problems I have had with the sigma include the soldering on the zoom drive failing, never had this with the canon so if I go bush it will be a canon.

[arthurking83]

Yep! fair enough, but I'm sure there are many people out there with stories of how durable the Sigma(or whatever other brand) lens can be.

I'm thinking that this incident may be an isolated one rather than the standard definition of how durable the Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens is.

I'm sure they wouldn't be so popular, with more users than the Canon equivalent lens ever hopes to achieve, as the Sigma is targeted at a wider audience(wider user base in other brands) and as it;s cheaper, by default you'd expect a much larger sample base to calculate a durability conclusion!

So what you are saying though is that because the lens is manufactured by Canon to a higher durability level it's completely immune to any kind of breakages or wear and tear?
ie. That Canon have never had to repair any of the thousands of 70-200mm f/2.8's.... ever!?!?... since it's introduction to market? :confused:
That's quite a reputation to have I reckon :rolleyes:

Your experience is most valued(by anyone considering this kind of lens), and not to be discounted.. but to make a blanket statement about a product's durability, based only on one experience is misleading.

[I @ M]

As another ( happy ) Sigma owner I will stick in my two bobs worth.

70-200 bought secondhand and been everywhere.
Had to have a "chip" fitted to correct focus issues, cost $88.00.
The newer versions can have the existing chip rewritten in Australia at a slightly less cost if needed.
I have never doubted the sharpness of the lens but with the focus issues it never excelled.
Most lenses are sharper a stop down from wide open aren't they?

Sorry about the boring picture but it ranks up there with diswash liquid bottles and brick walls but a long way behind flowers. :D

Nikon D200 Sigma 70-200 @ 200mm 1/1250 F/2.8 ISO 100
Colour mode 3 with increased saturation in the camera.
There is NO in camera or PP sharpening in this shot, the only adjustment was to correct the white balance with a white and black control point on the sign due to some idiot leaving the white balance on auto.

Full frame.
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh294/ImagesAtMarlo/60k.jpg

100% screen crop
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh294/ImagesAtMarlo/60k1.jpg

The lens has cost under 1k so far, is at least 4 years old and comparing it to buying the Nikon equivalent which is an extremely good lens with VR I really can't justify the extra $$$.
Don't be put off buy so called quality control problems, they exist with every brand these days.

[arthurking83]

As another ( happy ) Sigma owner I will stick in my two bobs worth.

.....


Don't be put off buy so called quality control problems, they exist with every brand these days.

QC issues are one of the points I was trying to allude too here Andrew, but I didn't want to introduce Helmut's issues into the equation :p

Personally the only issue I see as wrong with the Sigma and Tamron equivalents is that optical stabilisation is missing! At their price points, and I'd say for only a couple of hundred dollars more(if that!), they are insane for not offering it on this level of gear, and only on their consumer models.

[Peter]

I'm thinking that this incident may be an isolated one rather than the standard definition of how durable the Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens is.

The original post made reference to the difference in the quality of the build
Mount and Build Quality
The Canon's build quality and "presence" is far beyond that of the Sigma.

It is my opinion that over the life of the lens you get what you pay for, by paying for a better quality build in the first place will in the end pay for itself. Its not snobbery but just getting value for your money.

[Peter]

So what you are saying though is that because the lens is manufactured by Canon to a higher durability level it's completely immune to any kind of breakages or wear and tear?
ie. That Canon have never had to repair any of the thousands of 70-200mm f/2.8's.... ever!?!?... since it's introduction to market? :confused:
That's quite a reputation to have I reckon :rolleyes:



Now you are just being silly.

[Shelley]

When I can afford it - canon all the way for me

.... i will be buying the 70-200 2.8 (canon)

[arthurking83]

Now you are just being silly.

Yes but what almost invariably happens is that: Canon or Nikon build a dud copy of a pro lens, and it breaks down.

The owner just shrugs their shoulders, and thinks to themselves 'hey I just got the one dud copy, and I have a 5 year warranty so there's nothing to worry about'.. but nothing along the lines of what you just re-iterated against Sigmas quality/durability.

it just happens that because you paid less, and it wasn't branded, it came across instantly as cheaper build and quality.. not just a matter of it's the one that slipped through the QC net!

This lens feels as solid as any of the other brands of 70-200/2.8 lenses out there. That yours broke doesn't make it any less durable than any of the other similar lens type from other brands out there.
Simple QC issue that either Sigma missed, or just happened to your version.

Curious now, as to how long ago it happened, what exact model of the lens it was(as there are three of these I think?? .. there's a non macro, a macro and a series II macro... did you purchase it new, and how long did it last before the breakage.

As for perceived durability, unless you know how to pull a lens apart and put it back together again, it really doesn't mean anything! You're probably confusing external appearances and weight for durability anyhow, and I've seen more than enough hocus pocus/smoke and mirrors from apparently well built vehicles, to know better than that.

the Space Shuttle is a supposedly well built and durable vehicle, yeah?? and for all intents and purposes it usually is, as it's built to some of the highest standards of durability considering the environmental elements is has to put up with. But we all remember one day in the late 80's when it all went balls up for them.. over a seemingly insignificant part!

Unless there is data to prove the comments, they are usually meaningless(except to you).

Nikon usually also build some of the most durable lenses you can get.. they're all metal and seem to have that bullet proofness about them, and no one(that owns a Pro quality Nikon lens) will argue about that! But they do have an issue, and it revolves around certain older lens designs which are all made from stronger than plastic metal and feel like they could take on a nuclear bomb if the need ever arises.
Yet one small part almost always invariably breaks on them(the ones that have that particular design). Mine didn't, but many others do.
I also take my lenses to the bush, mainly Sigmas and Tamrons, but I've never had any of my lenses break or fail.
How does that relate to what you experienced? it's completely the opposite perspective!!

According to my perspective then, Tamron and Sigma lenses are utterly durable, because that's the only experience I've ever had.

My comments are made for the purpose of more a balanced assessment :D

[JM Tran]

what some ppl fail to realise is that Sigma is the biggest 3rd party lens manufacturer in the world for SLRs, their production numbers eclipse that of Canon and other companies

more lenses produced and utilized = more chances of defects and break downs

Canon produces much less lenses per year than Sigma, but they also have their own problems, u just hear about it less, as there are less people using them than Sigma.

Expensive products arent always a fail proof purchase, think back to the release of the 1DmkIII when ppl started reporting AF problems and shutter failing when shooting at 10fps, took Canon a while to acknowledge it and embarrassingly recalled the cameras in for servicing. At 5k for the camera, you would think it has to be perfect right? :)

my old trusty Sigma 17-70 which served me well for over 2 yrs of travel photography around Asia, it has been rained on in jungles, dropped in water and mud, dropped in snow, dropped on concrete etc. The material lining has been mostly stripped off to reveal the plastic barrel underneath; and it still AF accurately and optics are fine.

on the other hand, give me the protection and comfort of the latest generation L lens any day! :)

[SpaceJunk]

I'm a big fan of Sigma glass myself, from my own personal experience guys, I have never had a problem with any of my siggies purchased both new and secondhand.................. but I do have an "L" lens that has parts of the dust seals falling out of it, but that lens is about 15 months old now, so you'll understand if I personally don't respond excitedly to quality control 'hypotheticals' that get thrown up from time time usually on a hearsay basis, I'm more about what works well for me and suits my budget, I do enjoy a little of the Canon v Nikon baiting from time to time, but that is more to do with sport than photography ...lol :food04:

[Becstarr]

I have to agree with Shelley I am going to wait and save my pennies to get what I really want which is definately canon.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I have no experience with the canon itself but I can safely say that the sigma F2.8 has been wtih me all over the world in all sorts of strange environments, been jolted around and so far, not a single issue.
The only issue I have with it is autofocussing especially in AF drive mode seems slow (though I haven' comparedw the canon because I've never used it).

[benixau]

Having held both a Sony 70-200 and my Sigma 70-200, I can say the sigma feels and looks more professional. As a matter of fact, when I did test them side by side at PMA the only thing the sony had which I wish the sigma had was a focus limiter.

Now I don't pixel peep so i don't know what the differing images would look like but I will say, that as most people rate the Canon, Nikon and Sony 70-200 lenses at about equal, that build quality is a perception that is all subjective.

[Mav]

Anyone wanting to see what is possible using a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM combined with a Canon 1.4X TC attached to a Canon 5DMk2 can see the phot below:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/3892059120_2589db4a6f_o.jpg

[selaw]

I just got a Sigma 70-200mm EX F2.8 II after a long think. For me, $ is an issue, it was either purchase a single Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS new for about $2500 locally or have 2 Sigma lens for the same cost. The other lens I got is the Sigma 120-400mm OS EX.

I have now received both lens, I just can't be happier in owning both these lens. I think value for money, the Sigma wins hands down. Image quality is up there with the Canon, I have a 1D MKIII and it works just fine.

I am almost in exactly the same situation. I have a 1D MKIII due tomorrow. With no lens yet :( and minimal dollars left in budget, I am seriously considering the Sigma 2.8 plus a 580EX or second lens to get the ball rolling.

From all the reviews I have read I can't see any real reason why great images can't be produced from third party lenses and employing good technique/composeure and post editing software. I would be inclined however, to pay closer attention to their premium range.

[PaulMac]

I'm not going to read into all your posts however I can tell you that I have owned a number of lenses. Sigma Tamron & Canon and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that when you buy Canon you get what you pay for. My 70-200 f/2.8 focuses twice as quick is IMHO sharper, has better colour quality and is built better.... End of story..... Are Canon lenses perfect... HELL NO but there is no way ( when I'm in the middle of a wedding) that I will carry a Tamron or Sigma with me again especially in low light situations.

Please please if you don't want to spend the extra $$ to get a Canon lens ( which is fine if you don't have it) waste you breath and time trying to justify a lesser quality lens by saying it's just as good unless that's what makes you feel better about buying it. If it serves it's purpose for you and you are happy with your images that's fine. I am a pro photographer.... How stupid would I be to spend an extra 1K on a lens if it wasn't any better??? I don't care less what colour my lens is or what people think of what's in my hands... seriously I don't... The final image is all that counts to me and the Canon lens wins every time with me.