Help with lens selection
Aug 23, 2016 12:29:59 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
PaulB wrote:
I am very interested in either the Canon 70-200 mm... (show quote)
The Canon is a much better lens than the Sigma. The Sigma is a very good lens, and a much better value, but the Canon has superior everything, and doesn't suffer with focus breathing nearly as much as a the Sigma.
If you are not committed to f/2.8, consider the Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. It's got an impressive build, focus limiting, and optics almost on a par with the f/2.8 version and equal or better than the Sigma. It's also weather sealed and has internal zoom as well as internal focusing. Other than its impressive optics, the main reasons to consider the f/4 IS are its weight and size, (it is literally 1/2 the weight of the heavier f/2.8 version), and its cost which is $900 cheaper. If you shoot handheld and lug around either the Sigma or Canon f/2.8 lens for a while, you may appreciate the significantly smaller and lighter Canon f/4 IS version. In the end it was my choice and I have no regrets.
Aug 23, 2016 12:34:53 #
PaulB wrote:
Thanks Lfingar!
It's better to use the Quote Reply button when replying.
Aug 23, 2016 12:35:11 #
Aug 23, 2016 13:03:20 #
I shoot the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS USM version of this lens. If you have actual justification for the f2.8, go for it. As for the money problem, get the brand and version you can live with. You already know which brand is best, Canon.
B
B
Aug 23, 2016 13:14:22 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Bill Emmett wrote:
I shoot the Canon 70-200mm f4 IS USM version of this lens. If you have actual justification for the f2.8, go for it. As for the money problem, get the brand and version you can live with. You already know which brand is best, Canon.
B
B
Love my Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS. The much smaller weight and size makes extensive handheld shooting a breeze, and other than the one stop of light and thinner DoF, I gave up very little in IQ.
Aug 23, 2016 17:07:26 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Check out Tony Northrup's testing of the Canon, Sigma, and Tamron version of this lens. You may want to consider the Tamron.
Aug 23, 2016 19:22:10 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I would recommend you head over to The-Digital-Picture website and closely compare the two lenses.... They have test shots done with each lens posted, as well as side-by-side specifications and detailed analysis. They may or may not have done the tests with the same camera you're using, just be sure to select the same or similar camera and settings from the pull down menus, to do as "apples to apples" as possible comparison.
Something else to think about any time you're considering a third party lens.... there's no guarantee it will work correctly or at all on a future camera, should you ever upgrade. With Canon lenses - especially modern EF L-series where it's part of the definition that they work on all EOS cameras past, present and future - there's no such worry. All 125 million Canon lenses work on all EOS cameras made the past 25+ years without fail, (except of course for EF-S which are designed to only be usable on APS-C cameras beginning with the 300D/Digital Rebel onward).
In contrast, third party lenses may or may not work on some future Canon model. Sigma, in particular, has had more compatibility issues than others. To be fair, that might partly be because Sigma has offered more variety of lenses than other 3rd party manufacturers. And, in case of some more recent and more valuable models, they have quite often stepped up to fix "issues". Tamron has had fewer, but some issues (and also has offered fixes for many of them). I'm not aware of any issues with Tokina lenses.
That said, I do use a couple third party lenses myself (a Tamron and a Tokina). Between price and features, they simply met my needs better than anything Canon was offering. But the majority of my lenses are Canon.
The Canon 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II is widely considered the best of it's class. One reason is that it uses a fluorite element, which helps insure a telephoto lens is very sharp, with no or very minimal chromatic aberrations. Years ago Canon developed a process to "grow" their own fluorite crystals, as well as new manufacturing techniques to make lens elements with it. Today they use fluorite in a lot of their telephotos... even some that cost under $700. In comparison, to get a Nikkor with fluorite you will need to spend a minimum of $10,000 and they currently utilize it in two lens models. AFAIK, Sigma and the other 3rd party manufacturers don't use fluorite in any of their lenses.
Canon uses fluorite in all their EF 70-200s except for the original f2.8 IS and f2.8 non-IS models. They also have used fluorite in both EF 100-400mm and their predecessor the 100-300/5.6, 200-400mm 1.4X, and all versions of 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 500/4.5, 600/4, 800/5.6 and 1200/5.6 lenses.
Fluorite ain't perfect.... For example, while for most terrestrial uses it's great, NASA apparently didn't use Canon lenses (and, hence, cameras) because of fluorite element failures during the high g-forces and heavy vibrations of rocket launches. But for us earthbound photographers it can make for great images!
Before you buy either of those 70-200s, be sure to go to a store, fit them to your camera and decide if you are willing to lug the combo around. They're fairly hefty lenses.
I've used the original Canon EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM for about fifteen years. In fact I use it so much that I decided to get a backup and bought the 70-200/4L IS USM. Now I actually find I use the f4 lens more often... it's roughly 2/3 the weight and size of the f2.8 lenses. If a lighter and almost $1000 cheaper lens appeals to you, it's also quite sharp (uses fluorite, too), super fast focusing and has the latest and greatest IS (same claimed 3 to 4 stops worth as the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II... the earlier 70-200/2.8 IS claims 2 to 3 stop stabilization).
All the Canon 70-200s are real work horses.... durable and long lasting. I'm sure I've used my 15 year old EF 70-200/2.8 IS more than any other lens in my kit and it's still working great, has never missed a beat. They are all internal focusing/internal zooming designs (don't change length when focused or zoomed), which probably contributes to their dust and moisture resistance, as well as maintaining their balance when shooting with them.
The f2.8 Canon zooms come with a tripod mounting ring and a "petal" shaped lens hood. The f4 zooms don't come with but can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring and use standard, straight lens hoods.
Something else to think about any time you're considering a third party lens.... there's no guarantee it will work correctly or at all on a future camera, should you ever upgrade. With Canon lenses - especially modern EF L-series where it's part of the definition that they work on all EOS cameras past, present and future - there's no such worry. All 125 million Canon lenses work on all EOS cameras made the past 25+ years without fail, (except of course for EF-S which are designed to only be usable on APS-C cameras beginning with the 300D/Digital Rebel onward).
In contrast, third party lenses may or may not work on some future Canon model. Sigma, in particular, has had more compatibility issues than others. To be fair, that might partly be because Sigma has offered more variety of lenses than other 3rd party manufacturers. And, in case of some more recent and more valuable models, they have quite often stepped up to fix "issues". Tamron has had fewer, but some issues (and also has offered fixes for many of them). I'm not aware of any issues with Tokina lenses.
That said, I do use a couple third party lenses myself (a Tamron and a Tokina). Between price and features, they simply met my needs better than anything Canon was offering. But the majority of my lenses are Canon.
The Canon 70-200/2.8L IS Mark II is widely considered the best of it's class. One reason is that it uses a fluorite element, which helps insure a telephoto lens is very sharp, with no or very minimal chromatic aberrations. Years ago Canon developed a process to "grow" their own fluorite crystals, as well as new manufacturing techniques to make lens elements with it. Today they use fluorite in a lot of their telephotos... even some that cost under $700. In comparison, to get a Nikkor with fluorite you will need to spend a minimum of $10,000 and they currently utilize it in two lens models. AFAIK, Sigma and the other 3rd party manufacturers don't use fluorite in any of their lenses.
Canon uses fluorite in all their EF 70-200s except for the original f2.8 IS and f2.8 non-IS models. They also have used fluorite in both EF 100-400mm and their predecessor the 100-300/5.6, 200-400mm 1.4X, and all versions of 200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 500/4.5, 600/4, 800/5.6 and 1200/5.6 lenses.
Fluorite ain't perfect.... For example, while for most terrestrial uses it's great, NASA apparently didn't use Canon lenses (and, hence, cameras) because of fluorite element failures during the high g-forces and heavy vibrations of rocket launches. But for us earthbound photographers it can make for great images!
Before you buy either of those 70-200s, be sure to go to a store, fit them to your camera and decide if you are willing to lug the combo around. They're fairly hefty lenses.
I've used the original Canon EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM for about fifteen years. In fact I use it so much that I decided to get a backup and bought the 70-200/4L IS USM. Now I actually find I use the f4 lens more often... it's roughly 2/3 the weight and size of the f2.8 lenses. If a lighter and almost $1000 cheaper lens appeals to you, it's also quite sharp (uses fluorite, too), super fast focusing and has the latest and greatest IS (same claimed 3 to 4 stops worth as the 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II... the earlier 70-200/2.8 IS claims 2 to 3 stop stabilization).
All the Canon 70-200s are real work horses.... durable and long lasting. I'm sure I've used my 15 year old EF 70-200/2.8 IS more than any other lens in my kit and it's still working great, has never missed a beat. They are all internal focusing/internal zooming designs (don't change length when focused or zoomed), which probably contributes to their dust and moisture resistance, as well as maintaining their balance when shooting with them.
The f2.8 Canon zooms come with a tripod mounting ring and a "petal" shaped lens hood. The f4 zooms don't come with but can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring and use standard, straight lens hoods.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.