Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Canon70-200 2.8 or Sigma 150-500 ?
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Apr 23, 2012 16:50:28   #
Retired 1sg Loc: Central Ohio
 
Recently I broke my 70-200 2.8 Sigma lens and now I NEED to purchase a new one. I was never very happy with the Sigma, focus always seemed soft and not sharp.
My dilemma is $$. The Sigma 150-500 at $1000 or the Canon 70-200 2.8 at $1300.
My camera is a Canon 1D Mark III and I shoot mainly sports (indoor and outdoor)
My wallet tells me to go with the Sigma because of price and the longer range, also the reviews I have read about the newer version of this lens have been good.
My heart and gut tell me to go with the Canon. I have tried this lens on my camera and the quality is great, that and my past experience with my old Sigma lens
I am looking for input from you Hoggers that have tried both lens and also you Ohio Hogs on any good lens repair shops in this state I could send my old Sigma to (broke the collar off)

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 17:25:52   #
DANthephotoMAN
 
Canon lens. Spend the extra $300 bucks on the quality lens - your camera deserves it.

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 17:50:57   #
Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina
 
Well for indoor sports there is absolutely no choice, you have to go with the 2.8 Canon. (where are you finding one for $1,300 BTW?)
Which outdoor sports do you shoot? 200 can often come up a bit short but you could add a 1.4 extender to get 280.
In any case that's a top quality camera and it does deserve top quality glass, get the Canon.

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2012 18:52:20   #
fishone0 Loc: Kingman AZ
 
the Canon of course. just bought the 70mm to 200mm L IS USM f/4 for my new MK III. LOve it. I do mostly outdoor shooting and I wanted to be able to carry and handhold my shots so that's why I went for the f/4 instead of the 2.8

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 19:16:55   #
ace-mt Loc: Montana
 
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 20:52:30   #
DANthephotoMAN
 
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 20:54:59   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
I am a MAJOR fan of the Sigma 150-500mm lens (ask anybody) but if you are shooting sports, forget it! Its just too slow. The 70-200mm F2.8 is probably the best lens ever designed for a "go-to" sports lens. Take a look at Sigmas 70-200mm F2.8 at half the price. Another UHH'r just bought one for his Canon and says its sharper than his Canon was. His handle is "jimberton"

Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2012 20:57:09   #
ace-mt Loc: Montana
 
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!
quote=ace-mt If you're shooting a crop sensor cam... (show quote)


Apparently ONE of us knows what he shoots.... it's not me.
Missed the part about the MKIII :shock:

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 20:58:24   #
DANthephotoMAN
 
What does anyone think of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8? It's even cheaper than the sigma, and I have had success with tamron in the past. Does anyone have any testimonials with this lens? It seems to be a forgotten lens in the 'field' of sports photography, pardon the pun...

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 21:00:54   #
DANthephotoMAN
 
ace-mt wrote:
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!
quote=ace-mt If you're shooting a crop sensor cam... (show quote)


Apparently ONE of us knows what he shoots.... it's not me.
quote=DANthephotoMAN quote=ace-mt If you're shoo... (show quote)


Sorry if I seemed rude, nothing foul was intended.... I just was commenting on the fact that he's got a nice camera and that his post says so. Again, no rude intentions on my part - sorry
:D

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 21:01:05   #
MT Shooter Loc: Montana
 
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!
quote=ace-mt If you're shooting a crop sensor cam... (show quote)


Sensors



Reply
 
 
Apr 23, 2012 21:03:48   #
ace-mt Loc: Montana
 
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


No problem! I "read" it twice and didnt see the MKIII....thats scary.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!
quote=ace-mt If you're shooting a crop sensor cam... (show quote)


Apparently ONE of us knows what he shoots.... it's not me.
quote=DANthephotoMAN quote=ace-mt If you're shoo... (show quote)


Sorry if I seemed rude, nothing foul was intended.... I just was commenting on the fact that he's got a nice camera and that his post says so. Again, no rude intentions on my part - sorry
:D
quote=ace-mt quote=DANthephotoMAN quote=ace-mt ... (show quote)


No problem. I "read" the op twice and didnt see the MKIII... thats scary. I shoot a 5D and know that its full frame. All in good fun :)

Reply
Apr 23, 2012 21:03:56   #
DANthephotoMAN
 
MT Shooter wrote:
DANthephotoMAN wrote:
ace-mt wrote:
If you're shooting a crop sensor camera. the 150-500 is going to be too long, and indoors I dont think that it will be fast enough. I shot a few shots at a rodeo this past weekend with the 150-500, and found that I was often too close. It worked great from the stands though. Sorry that you had a bad experience with Sigma 70-200 2.8. I absolutely love this lens. I use it for sports and portraits. (Come to think of it, just about everything else.) Good luck with whatever you decide.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! Certainly no 'crop sensor' going on with his camera, LOL! That's a sweet cam!
quote=ace-mt If you're shooting a crop sensor cam... (show quote)


Actually the Canon 1D IS a crop sensor body. It has the APS-H sensor with a 1.29x crop factor rather than Canons typical 1.6x smaller sensor.
quote=DANthephotoMAN quote=ace-mt If you're shoo... (show quote)


Hmmm... interesting... I stand corrected, I was under the idea everything "5dmkii and up" was full frame.... guess not.

Reply
Apr 24, 2012 05:34:06   #
skydiverbob Loc: I retired in San Antonio
 
Retired 1sg wrote:
Recently I broke my 70-200 2.8 Sigma lens and now I NEED to purchase a new one. I was never very happy with the Sigma, focus always seemed soft and not sharp.
My dilemma is $$. The Sigma 150-500 at $1000 or the Canon 70-200 2.8 at $1300.
My camera is a Canon 1D Mark III and I shoot mainly sports (indoor and outdoor)
My wallet tells me to go with the Sigma because of price and the longer range, also the reviews I have read about the newer version of this lens have been good.
My heart and gut tell me to go with the Canon. I have tried this lens on my camera and the quality is great, that and my past experience with my old Sigma lens
I am looking for input from you Hoggers that have tried both lens and also you Ohio Hogs on any good lens repair shops in this state I could send my old Sigma to (broke the collar off)
Recently I broke my 70-200 2.8 Sigma lens and now ... (show quote)


I just bought the Mark III. Great camera!!!
I've had the 70-200 and it's a great lens, I love it.
Recently I came across a photog shooting a basketball game. He was using a few Canon lenses. He wasn't using the 70-200 because of its weight. Instead he was using a Canon prime 300mm that is shorter and lighter.
Something interesting to consider.
For me, I'm saving all my money to get into the Zeiss lenses. For starters the pick will be the 21mm Distagon.
Stick with the Canon or go up in the world. :-)

Reply
Apr 24, 2012 07:11:46   #
sportyman140 Loc: Juliette, GA
 
Have you thought about a Tamron Lens ? I have been studying their equipment a little.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.