70-200 F4L IS Canon V's 70-200 F2.8 OS Sigma

[Speedway]

My 18-250 Sigma is in for a quote on repairs and I have been thinking about a replacement if it is not economical to repair. The Canon 70-200 F4 L IS and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS are similar prices and I am wondering which would be the better choice. The main use would be football and motorsport plus as a general walkabout lens. The canon F2.8 IS is way out of my budget and I have not been able to find a sensible comparison between the F4 Canon and the F2.8 Sigma.
Keith.

[mikec]

Well besides build quality and AF speed the biggest difference would be the 1 stop from f/2.8 to f/4. Have you tested either in a store on your body to see how it performs?

Only you can say for certain if you can live with f/4, buy once and buy right. If you know you'll always be shooting stopped down get the f/4 if you know you'll want to be able to isolate subjects or shoot in darker settings get the f/2.8.

I know The Digital Picture has reviews of both of these lenses by the one author so at least you can probably compare fairly well yourself between the 2.

[LJG]

Also do you really need IS/OS? If you can live without it the Canon 70-200 F2.8 without IS is only $200 dearer.

[kiwi]

hmm, tough call, I cant see you needing IS either

Id go the sigma, it ticks lal the boxes and you will really need 2.8 (or more) if you do a lot of sport

[terry.langham]

I had an older non-OS Sigma and sold it because it was to big and heavy to carry all the time. I replaced it with a Canon f/4 non-IS and while it is much easier to carry and lives in my camera bag, I really, really miss the extra stop. When funds allow I will get another Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to throw in the bag when needed.

[Roosta]

Speedway, have a look here, it's all about IQ for me, but the f2.8 is obviously faster, but not always sharper.

http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=404&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=376&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[Speedway]

I had looked at that comparison but the sigma used is the non os one which tests as inferior alongside the os version on every test I have seen also I havent been able to work out how to read the data on that site and the sales links all go to canon. So I feel the data is biased.
Keith.

[JM Tran]

I own an F4 IS, but if you are to shoot sports and motorsports I would go with the Sigma f2.8, the bigger aperture allows the higher end Canon bodies to gain faster AF and more focusing points among other things.

[camerasnoop]

The 70-200 F2.8L non-IS is a great lens. You would not regret it if you spent the extra $200 on it Keith. You won't need IS for the sports you are shooting. Might be different if you were shooting that action-packed sport of Synchronised Swimming.

[Roosta]

I had looked at that comparison but the sigma used is the non os one which tests as inferior alongside the os version on every test I have seen also I havent been able to work out how to read the data on that site and the sales links all go to canon. So I feel the data is biased.
Keith.
I can understand some aprehension, but Bryan's site is meant to be informative, he states he has no link to Canon or Nikon, he tests Nikon and other major brands aswell on the site.
What do you think IS/OS is going to give you in the options you've listed in the original post? You mention 'football' is that AFL?
Did Bryans test advise you that IS/OS was used or not used,? set on a tripod and used under standard conditions for lens testing, IS/OS isn't going to offer you anything anyway.

I was mearly trying to offer you some advice many people have used previously, maybe you need to go to a shop and try both lenses, shoot the OS f2.8 on manual and use a shutter speed lower than your focal lenght and see how sharp the results are. This many be your best guide, focus on a car driving up the road and see what you get.

The sales go to B&H or another MAJOR re-seller, have you noticed where AP'S site sponsors take you, B&H is one.....

Don't forget if you buy Sigma, you can take advantage of the C R Kennedy price match against grey import pricing, check CRK'S site for full rundown.

[William W]

If the OP is choosing the lens for the main use of Sport (also including Synchronized Swimming, because adequate arresting of Subject Motion is necessary for shooting that Sport also): then (given IQ is “relatively” similar) a large aperture (lens speed) and a non varying maximum aperture are the two main criteria for most shots he will pull with a zoom lens: so of the two lenses mentioned the Sigma is the choice in this regard.

Apropos IS for sport: the major consideration is the freehand panning of the motor sports (or any other panning sport): and there appears to be enough credible evidence that the Sigma OS System is lacking by comparison to the Canon IS System.

Another consideration for sport: would be the use of a tele-extender and credible comparative evidence is probably difficult to garner on this topic – but suffice to say that realistically of the two lenses mentioned the Canon F/4 zoom is limited to using only a x1.4 Tele extender, whereas the one could attempt a x2.0 on the Sigma F/2.8.

***

Noted that the OP also mentions: “plus as a general walkabout lens”:

“general and walkabout” with a FL from 70 to 200 used on an APS-C camera usually does NOT fit hand in glove with many Photographers, so advice would be to accurately consider how many shots were made with the older lens, when used between 70 and 200 vs. its use between18mm to 69mm.

***

Noted also that the OP also mentions: “I have not been able to find a sensible comparison between the F4 Canon and the F2.8 Sigma.”:

As already mentioned, the EF70 to 200F/2.8 USM is an option for a little extra cost. If this lens is taken into consideration, then many aspects of the choices change – as IS is taken out of the equation and that has to be factored, especially in respect of “plus as a general walkabout lens” and also for the application of IS panning for the motor sports.


That stated, there are gains in IQ buying the canon F2.8, especially at F/2.8~F/3.5 and also the ability to work both tele-extenders efficiently and with little IQ loss, especially when teamed with an APS-C Camera.

***

It is unclear, but implied that there is only one lens - the 18 to 250 . . .
One final note: it is difficult to conceive that any 70 to 200 lens will be a suitable "replacement" for the broken 18 to 250 lens, as it is highly unlikely that the 18 to 69mm range will be warranted so few times to render that FL range as not required.

In this case, the suggestion to consider a two lens solution is appropriate: and with that consideration the resultant ability to focus each of the two lenses selected on particular individual uses and requirements.

WW

[dulvariprestige]

The new 70-200 OS is way in front of the non-OS model, I nearly bought the canon 2.8 non-IS over the sigma, but I'm glad I didn't, as the OS does come in very handy when not shooting high SS's hand held, especially when panning.

[Speedway]

Thank you all for your replies. I am still waiting on C R Kennedy re repairs on my 18-250 after a few phone calls it's gone from 2 weeks turn around and I should have it by Christmas on the 6th to it is with the techs now and I will email you back by Thursday and as long as we have the parts in stock it should be ok to pick up before Christmas, that was Tuesday 13th morning. Friday it is with the techs now, I will email you the quote this afternoon and I doubt it will be ready by Christmas. Saturday, and still no email. I am not happy with the run-around, I was going to go for the sigma but I am now looking at taking out a small loan to cover the extra and get the canon 2.8L is ll.
Keith.

[Speedway]

Update on lens repair.
I arrived in Melbourne on Wednesday 21st. rang Kennedy's that day to be told it was with the techs and after saying I had been through this over the past week was told to hold the line, he came back and told me the aperture motor needed replacing, Total cost $119 and I could pick up Friday 23rd so I got my lens back for Christmas, gave it a bit of a work out and am happy again. I put the problems at Kennedy's down to Christmas rush and in the end am more than happy with the service provided.
Keith.

[crafty1tutu]

I have a friend who had the Canon 70-200 F4 and upgraded to the 70-200 2.8 IS version and really noticed the weight difference. I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS version which I bought after having problems with the Sigma 70-200 non IS version. The Sigma took wonderful photos, but I had major problems with auto focusing and Sigma eventually replaced the lens. I decided to sell it and go with the Canon which is what I really wanted in the first place. Apparently the IS versions are a lot heavier than the non IS versions. My Sigma was back with CR Kennedy at least 12 times in as many months and through it all they were really helpful and courteous, especially as I had bought the lens overseas.

[Arg]

....Apparently the IS versions are a lot heavier than the non IS versions. .....

1470g vs 1310g for the Canon 70-200 f2.8. Is that a lot?

[Speedway]

Canon F4 non is 705g, is 760g, 2.8 non is 1310g, is II 1490g, Sigma non os 1370g, os 1430g and the Tamron 1320g. The most difference is between the canon 2.8's (which are also the lightest and heaviest of the 2.8's) and that is only 180g. When you are used to lugging the Sigma 150-500 at 1910g these are all lightweights.
Keith.

[Dalmasetto]

I’m interested in buying a 70-200 in the near future. Amongst the various purposes I would have for the lens the main purpose would be low light event/festival photography. By low light I mean dawn/early morning light and potentially night dance floors. I love capturing candid images of people on outdoor dance floors. To give you an idea of the type of images I am talking about here are a few from an event I attended this past weekend to give you an idea.
http://500px.com/photo/8501338
http://500px.com/photo/8549885
http://500px.com/photo/8553551
http://500px.com/photo/8532066
These were all taken with an 85mm 1.8. Although I love my 85mm I find that the prime can be limiting when trying to capture candid shots. I’d like a bit more flexibility/reach.
As a person with a family to support and little pocket money my budget is never going to extend to the Canon 2.8 IS 70-200. That’s just a pipe dream. I think the most I’ll be able to find (after a few more months saving) is $1200.
I’m assuming that IS/OS is going to be desirable given the type of photography I want to use the lens for and the faster the better given the subjects are often dancing. I guess my real question is would the Canon f4 IS be able to capture what I want or am I better going for the Sigma f2.8?
Thank you in advance for any advice.

[dulvariprestige]

After having a quick look at your shots and checking the the exif, I'd be aiming for the Sigma 2.8, also don't forget that IS/OS will only help with static subjects, if your SS speed is low and your subject is moving, you'll still get motion blur.

[Dalmasetto]

also don't forget that IS/OS will only help with static subjects, if your SS speed is low and your subject is moving, you'll still get motion blur.

Thank you. I hadn't taken that into account. Perhaps I would be better off buying a non IS Canon 2.8 as all my reading suggests it's sharper than the Sigma.

[dulvariprestige]

When I bought the OS Sigma, most reviews were saying it was a little better than the non IS canon and on par with the IS MK I, the AF on the canon is definitely quicker than the Sigma though.

[patrickv]

This review really scares me about the sigma 70-200 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6XCaqamsZQ
Even watching the video at 480p, the full images (not at 100% crop - all of it) at f/2.8 from the Canon lens look SIGNIFICANTLY better...

[dulvariprestige]

There's no doubting that the canon is better, and so it should be, being twice the price of the Sigma, but is it twice as good, I don't think so.

[unistudent1962]

There's no doubting that the canon is better, and so it should be, being twice the price of the Sigma, but is it twice as good, I don't think so.

The OP is considering the Canon 70-200 f4L IS and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The prices of these lenses are similar, so I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from. I've tried the Sigma, and I HAVE the Canon f4L IS. Image quality, focussing speed and build quality of the Canon is, in my opinion, superior. The focussing speed of the Sigma in particular is abysmal.

[Speedway]

I finished up finding the extra money and got the Canon 2.8 is ii and have been more than happy with my decision. Thank you all for your input.
Keith.

[dulvariprestige]

The OP is considering the Canon 70-200 f4L IS and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The prices of these lenses are similar, so I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from. I've tried the Sigma, and I HAVE the Canon f4L IS. Image quality, focussing speed and build quality of the Canon is, in my opinion, superior. The focussing speed of the Sigma in particular is abysmal.

Yeah I understand that, but the video is comparing it against the MKII 2.8, which is twice the price of the Sigma.

[patrickv]

Indeed! One would expect that the Canon f/4 would be closer in terms of image quality to the Canon f/2.8 that to the Sigma f/2.8 though.
As much as my experience with Sigma primes is very positive (once you get their focus recalibrated), with Sigma zooms... Not so much.

Edit: actually I have a few pics in my hard drive that I took with a friend's Canon f/4 IS. They look much cleaner than what the Sigma 2.8 took on the video review