I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and what they think of them.
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > what they think of them.
It would be worth saving for the IS version (70-200 f/2.8 L IS). Roger
In article <41385f09$0$29719$afc38...@news.easynet.co.uk>, Dimitris
<dimitri_74_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses > and > what they think of them.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> It would be worth saving for the IS version (70-200 f/2.8 L IS). > Roger
Yeah, but he could get both of those lenses for the price of the IS version. For me it's just way too expensive. I opted for the 70-200 2.8L version and couldn't be happier.
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > what they think of them.
I have the Canon 70-200mm f/4L. It is so good and so crisp (and fast) that all I can say is that is super great and definitely worth the price. When you encounter a lens of this capability and you have any afinity for good glass at all............ you actually cry a little when you hold it. I dare anybody else here who owns this lens to tell me I'm wrong.
Jimmy
"Dimitris" <dimitri_74_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > what they think of them.
> > I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> > I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > > what they think of them.
> It would be worth saving for the IS version (70-200 f/2.8 L IS).
I disagree. The tremendous amount of extra weight and size and cost severly detracts from the usability of this lens.
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > what they think of them.
> Cheers! > Dimitris
I have not used the Sigma but I own the Canon 70-200 f4L and love it. If you look around you can find it used for $500 or less.
In article <41385f09$0$29719$afc38...@news.easynet.co.uk>, Dimitris <dimitri_74_nospam@nospam_hotmail.com> writes
>Hello NG,
>I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide >between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
>I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), >and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple >of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and >what they think of them.
(1) I bought my daughter a Canon 70-200 f/4 last year; it is a superb lens and she is very pleased with it.
(2) I have never used the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX; however, I have bought 3 Sigma lenses in the past and concluded I will never buy another one. I can't afford them, as I always end up replacing them with a good lens later.
> I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more expensive), > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a couple > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses and > what they think of them.
There is one stop difference, and the Canon makes up for it by being easier to handhold. A colleague of mine swapped a Sigma 70-200 EX for the Canon 70-200 f4L and couldn't be happier.
Of course, if you already have a <35mm->70mm zoom you could try the Canon 200mm f2.8 prime...
-- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...."
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote in > message news:413863CD.2090505@qwest.net... > > Dimitris wrote: > > > Hello NG,
> > > I'm looking for a relatively fast zoom lens for my 10D, trying to decide > > > between the Canon EF 70-200 f4L and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX.
> > > I've found both lenses at similar prices (Canon slightly more > expensive), > > > and on paper it seems the Sigma is the way to go (as it gives you a > couple > > > of f-stops more) but wanted to hear from people who've used these lenses > and > > > what they think of them.
> > It would be worth saving for the IS version (70-200 f/2.8 L IS).
> I disagree. The tremendous amount of extra weight and size and cost severly > detracts from the usability of this lens.
> Jimmy > > Roger
I would hardly say that an increase of 0.1" in length and diameter, (7.6"x3.3" vs. 7.7"x3.4") and an increase of 6 and a half ounces (2.8 lbs. vs. 3.2 lbs.)as a tremendous amount of extra weight and size. That's somewhat in the realm of complaining about the pea under the stack of mattresses...
