70-200 f/2.8?

[S_J_P]

I'm after some opinions....

After a foray into the realms of the superzoom (Sigma 18-250mm) on a 60D I've seen the light, and last year bought a canon 15-85mm (a great and often overlooked lens) but I'd now like to sell the superzoom and purchase something to fill the gap between the 15-85 and my little used monster Sigma 150-500mm.

I'd like something fast, with a good pedigree, and OS which limits me to the highly desirable and expensive (even second-hand) 70-200 f/2.8L IS which is way over budget

Sigma do sell their 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM lens (One Stop Digital £795) which by all accounts is a great value lens. OK, so sharpness is merely good, there's no weather sealing, and it's not off-white in colour with a red ring, but it is £1,000 less than the canon incarnation

What are peoples thoughts on the Siggy? False economy or bargain option? Would the canon 70-200 f/4 L IS be a better option for a similar amount? Or should I save a whole load of cash and start using my 20 year old canon 70-300 Mk 1 noisy-autofocus non-IS glass instead and go on holiday?

[Thndr_strck]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Both the canon and sigma mark ones, are bettered by the mark twos, but then price also gets higher :-/

[Thndr_strck]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Or....you could sell the 150-500 and get a 50-500 OS Siggy...

[Hereford_EOS2]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

I'm after some opinions....

What are peoples thoughts on the Siggy? False economy or bargain option? Would the canon 70-200 f/4 L IS be a better option for a similar amount? Or should I save a whole load of cash and start using my 20 year old canon 70-300 Mk 1 noisy-autofocus non-IS glass instead and go on holiday?

I was not over impressed with the siggy a few years ago when I bought one.
It is however less conspicuous than the Canon white lenses.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a super sharp lens, less weight than the f/2.8.
Having just bought my Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS and testing it in North Devon last week, then I highly recommend that lens.
Just check my recent posts for sample images taken with the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.

[MX5]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

I thought long and hard about a lens in this sector. Asked for help on here ... and got it. In the end I decided to move to a diet of baked beans on toast, water and send SWMBO to work. I picked up a 70-200 f2.8 IS Mark II at my local Pro Dealer whilst it was on offer. Combine that with a cheque for £175 which Canon will eventually send (cash back) and I'm a happy bunny. But there are some great lenses in this sector. I felt I needed a fast lens, something I could attach my 1.4x to and still have a fast lens ...

Mind you if that Sigma is as well built and gives the same quality as my Sigma 10-20 then I'd be inclined to give it a test.

[S_J_P]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

I think everyone's confirming my suspicions that it pays to spend wisely.

Maybe the speed of the f/2.8 isn't what I really need anyhow, maybe the longer reach of the 70-300L would be better.

For the time being I'll bide my time, saving for what I want rather than going for second-best.

Thanks for the input!

[colin C]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

For the time being I'll bide my time, saving for what I want rather than going for second-best.

Very wise.

I always seem to take better pictures with my first choice equipment. Whenever I compromise (horrible word), I don't have the "reverence" for the equipment and the same pleasure in using it.

Colin

[hectorpaljr]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

A pal of mine used a sigma 70-200 and it proved to be a super quality (optically) lens but was not that rugged and needed a service very early in its life. I bought a canon 70-200 f4L and its a disappointment in terms of its autofocus. I can hand hold and manually focus at 200 with pin sharp results but the af just cant achieve the quality at 200, although it is just fine at shorter focal lengths. I would almost certainly go sigma next time.

[Nathaniel]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

I have a 70-200mm f4 L lens and it is superb with pin sharp images throughout the range. I use it always on AF. I tend to buy my L lenses second hand but in Mint condition and I think, I may be wrong, but a tried and tested well used lens is good value for me. They have worked well for me so far.

[Woolley]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Mine's spot on as well.

[Trevoreast]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

I bought a canon 70-200 f4L and its a disappointment in terms of its autofocus. I can hand hold and manually focus at 200 with pin sharp results but the af just cant achieve the quality at 200

Hi Hectorpaljr , I notice that you've been investigating this problem in an earlier post about focus ranges.

http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/showthread.php?10940-70-200-f4-L-focus-ranges&highlight=

You haven't posted any pics or given any info about your shooting conditions, so very difficult to help.

EG Shooting a static subject, hand held @ 200mm with a shutterspeed of 1/100 is quite a trick, and consistently sharp shots would indicate very good technique.


AF speed can slow in lower light, factor in low contrast subjects and most are rubbish. The same broad characteristics apply to all lenses.

If you try your 70-200 in sufficient light to get 1/ 400 @ ISO 100 and focus on something easy, if doesn’t focus fast – something’s not right. Use the focal range switch to make it a bit faster by all means.

If you know all the above, sorry to insult your knowledge.
I’m just trying to help you get the best from your lens.

Trev

[colin C]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Trevor's advice is always sound, but pay particular attention to the focus limit switch.

I don't have the f4 version, so I can't be specific, but "generally" each notch of the limit switch can increase to focus speed by 30% and reduce hunting in poor light.

Colin

[Woolley]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Choice of 1.2m or 3m minimum focus distance.

[hectorpaljr]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

If you know all the above, sorry to insult your knowledge.
I’m just trying to help you get the best from your lens.

Trev[/QUOTE]

I have plenty (decades) of experience but not with canon autofocus lenses. I cant get sharp pictures at 200mm but I can with 70-~150mm when using autofocus. But I can get them sharp with manual focus. DOF will be greater at shorter focal lengths of course and this could be masking an autofocus inaccuracy at these shorter focal lengths, I suppose. Speed of focus is not an issue.
Im going to run a few more tests.
Thanks for your comments above guys - appreciated!

[Alun100]

Re: 70-200 f/2.8?

Camera centres have been offering the 70-200mm F4 at £578 for some time now and once again I quote the recent NEC show but I started a heated debate on the canon stand this year when lookingat various lenses, this time between a pro and two very well informed amateurs. The pro told us that he had always wanted the f2.8 and it had been on his wish list until he eventually bought one, but just before his lens arrived he had borrowed the smaller and lighter lens and eventually took the 2.8 back to the shop and bought the F4 instead1
Having followed comments by forum members in the past there seems a split camp on this subject and I'm afraid its all down to your own experience, if only we could afford the dam trials!