| | I am considering getting another lens for my Canon 350D. The last year, I've been doing a lot of football photography using my Sigma 18-125 f/3.5-5.6. While I've been able to get a lot of decent shots with this, the short focal length along means I cant cover much of the pitch, I have to wait for the game to come to me so to speak. In addition, the maximum apperture values (in reality I can only use f/5.6, since I mostly shoot at maximum focal length) means I can only shoot in daylight, either in direct sunlight or during slightly overcast weather. A lot of the games I could be covering are played in the evening, with floodlights, which does not give enough light for my Sigma lens, unless I shoot at ISO 1600, which allways yields rubbish results.
So, I've been looking at two alternatives that are within my price range. The Canon 70-200 f/4 L, and the slightly more expensive Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. From what I've seen, the series of Canon 70-200 lenses are allmost universally lauded as superb quality lenses, but the Sigma also seems to recieve high praises. If anyone here have used either of these lenses, I would very much like to hear oppinions on them. I shoot with a monopod, so weight is not going to be a big problem.
Will f/4 be enough for shooting sports in floodlights, or will I still be short on light?
One particular thing I am wondering about is the difference between Canon's USM focusing and the HSM that Sigma produces. Is there any real difference between these, other than the first letter? The ability to focus without having to switch into manual mode first seems awfully handy.
[Last Modified:
10/13/2006 8:14:25 AM]
|
| | This discussion might be interesting: http://www.photosig.com/go/forums/read;jsessionid=aZ8qCrGe538fuvJkYX?id=230623
Also check out the comments made after this article: http://photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
They are the opinions of the people who posted it, so I cant really tell you if its true or not...
"Patrick Wong , February 28, 2000; 08:45 P.M.
I have the Sigma 70 to 200 F2.8 HSM. It is correct for the UK magazine Pratical Photography to rate the lens higher then the Canon. It is razor sharp, it is the one lens I use full time on my EOS 3 and have many rolls of film to prove. It HSM (similar to Canon USM) is quiet, fast, and deadly accurate plus you focus maunally without pushing a switch. This is one the few lens that really give Canon or Nikon a run for there money, I save about $1000 CDN price different. There is a down side to the lens, for what ever reason the lens happen to slip of the mount and hit the floor, major damage. To make a long store short I cause about $300 in damage which Sigma USA agree to cover (normal they don't) plus it take three month to fix which was a PITA. I have one question is the Canon repair much faster, would Canon fix it for free and is the Canon that much more duriable. ( when I say Canon I mean Canon Canada).
——
Michael Giuliani , April 24, 2000; 06:37 P.M.
Canon or Sigma? What is the dilemma!? For as long as I have been involved in this beautiful hobby I noticed that one of the hardest aspects of it, it is buying the right equipment. There is a lot of good products out there that make the choice even harder. To discuss now about the two lenses mentioned (Canon 70-200L USMf2.8 and Sigma HSM 70-200 EX f2.8), after the experience I have had with both of them, I ended up buying a Sigma. Why? I mainly shoot action sports (motocross, desert racing, and horse jumping) to sell pictures, and everything else for stock. The two lenses perform vrtually the same. AF speed is critical in the sports I shoot, and the two AF motors HSM and USM are equally fast. If AF speed is a concen, and you own any Canon below the EOS 3 and want to buy the Canon USM lens, don't be a fool! Buy the Sigma, save the difference in cost, and upgarde your camera body ... it is the camera that auto-focus, not the lens. The lens has only the motor, and as I mentiond above the HSM and USM motors are equally fast (don't tell me that the USM is 1 nanosecond faster, please!) Image quality ... well, it is probably the same and maybe the Sigma is slightly better. Construction ... the Canon feels stronger, but it is just a feeling that you are getting because of its metal barrel. Keep in mind that the paint on the Canon will chip a lot easier than the one on the Sigma. They are both very well sealed against dust and to me this is a concern, since I shoot in very dusty places(Desert,sand,dirt traks). If you drop it is only important to know how lucky you are!(Either lens will suffer equally) Price ... well, Sigma wins big time by being cheeper. Resale ... they will sell fast because they are both excellent lenses in great demand, and the depriciation is proportionally equal. In conclusion, both are excellent lenses that can produce equally excellent pictures that you could sell even to National Geographic or Sports Illustrated (the only limit would be your own ability to take great pictures). I have choosen the Sigma because it makes more sense to me! I had the money for a Canon, but I saved the difference to buy other equipment. I hope this will help you in your research. Photography is about taking great pictures, and the ability of the person behind the camera that makes it happen! Yes, the right equipment is important, but don't buy a "white" lens because it will make you look like a pro ... work on your skills, not on your look. Good luck!"
[Last Modified:
10/16/2006 8:52:57 PM]
|
| | My 20% worth ;)
Get the one you can afford. Someone said that if you want to make a million in photography, start with two million. I'm never going to buy a $1000 lens. I'd get second hand stuff first. You've gotta know that it will (beyond reasonable doubt) pay for itself. Once you do buy it, use it, use and use it till it falls to pieces! |
| | Given the longer range of the 70-200mm lenses compared to your current 18-125, you would need a faster shutter speed at the long end to ensure sharp images, about 1/300th of a second at 200mm (on a camera with a 1.6 cropfactor) compared to about 1/200 sec at 125mm.
– In terms of low-light shooting there wouldn't be much to be gained from having f4 @ 200mm compared to your current f5.6 @ 125mm.
Perhaps you should budget in a good mono-pod or tripod as well if you haven't already got one... |
| | Thanks for the input folks!
I'm leaning towards the Sigma, since I will need the lens to be able to handle fairly low-light conditions. The old Sigma 70-200 has been replaced with a new version that is called "Macro", but it's not a pure macro lens, it just means they've redused the minimum focusing length from 1.8 meters to 1 meter, according to Sigma (I contacted them), focusing farther away should not be changed from the old non-macro version.
I'm still not going to rush into buying it, I don't really need it that much untill march/april, so I'm going to wait for a while still, and hopefully, there will be some reviews done of it before the time comes to make the final decission.
And yeah, I've allready got a monopod :) Discovered to my great surprise that the security guards at an airport did not find it suspicious at all when I brought it as carry-on luggage. Why would anyone be suspicious of a person bringing a 40 cm steel rod aboard an airplane? :P |
RubenB Methuen, MA, United States | If it were me, I'd always choose the smaller f# (f2.8)...but here's some reading material to aide you in your decision making:Canon 70-200 f4 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 |
| | I use Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L. If you are an outdoor photographer or plan to use this lens mostly on outdoor, I strongly recommend you Canon. Yeah Sigma is faster than Canon but in image quality and sharpness Canon sightly better than Sigma. |
| | I agree with altugo!  |
