70-200 Canon or Sigma?
Apr 19, 2014 05:49:47 #
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
Get either Canon or Tamron - Sigma is ok, but the other two are better.
Apr 19, 2014 06:00:10 #
MaggieMay, I have that lens (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM), use it on my canon 6D, incredible results. For me, iyt is well worth the price I paid for it, many times, it is my walk around lens!
Apr 19, 2014 06:31:47 #
juanderfulpics
Loc: central jersey
The canon 70-200Lis is still an amazing lens, one can be had used around $1300 more or less depending on condition. You will never look back.
Apr 19, 2014 06:51:35 #
amehta wrote:
In the past few years, it seems that Sigma and Tamron in particular have put in considerable effort in producing lenses which are competitive with Canon/Nikon lenses. I think the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, in particular is a good example of that improvement.
I'm with Anand on this one, I recently purchased the Tamron instead of the Canon and am greatly pleased with the lens.
Apr 19, 2014 07:32:40 #
You get what you pay for. I have the v 2 of the 70-200 2.8 an it is fast an sharp. It also takes the 2x tc very well when u stop down to f9. Using the 1.4 tc there is no loss of sharpness . I was surprised how good the 2x lll works with this nev version.
Apr 19, 2014 08:59:56 #
I rented both the tamron and the canon (both 2.8 with IS (VC on tamron). I bought the canon after the test because of the tack sharp picture and fast focus. As stated by someone else in this post, if you are planning on selling your work imo, the canon is the way to go.
Apr 19, 2014 09:31:11 #
If you want equal quality lens with Canon, then the price is pretty well same. Sigma makes few 70-200s so make sure they are comparable.
Apr 19, 2014 09:42:52 #
Good morning. If you do not need f/2.8 in your intended work for the 70-200mm lens, then you may wish to consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS lens. Smaller, lighter, and very sharp, this version costs less too.
An example review here (but consult others too):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm
An example review here (but consult others too):
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f4-is.htm
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
Apr 19, 2014 09:50:12 #
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
When researching this lens purchase you may want to include the Canon refurbished lens site. Same lenses, different prices. Well worth your efforts.
Apr 19, 2014 10:41:58 #
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
Here's an extensive comparison.
http://mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
Apr 19, 2014 10:47:42 #
I have and use one of the earlier Sigma models. It is well built and quite sharp. Comparing my snaps to a buddies Nikon results, shows no difference in image quality.
Apr 19, 2014 10:48:33 #
From what I've seen, in general, some lower-cost lens brands frequently have excellent optical performance but don't have the
physical build qualities of a pricier brand lens. It's also true that the lower price lenses under the same brand name generally have a lesser mechanical quality than do the top-of-the-line lenses from the same brand name. Thus, the Canon "L" lenses are, in general, far better built than the non-"L" lenses in the Canon line....if they weren't, who would buy them?
physical build qualities of a pricier brand lens. It's also true that the lower price lenses under the same brand name generally have a lesser mechanical quality than do the top-of-the-line lenses from the same brand name. Thus, the Canon "L" lenses are, in general, far better built than the non-"L" lenses in the Canon line....if they weren't, who would buy them?
Apr 19, 2014 10:51:02 #
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
The canon 70x200 has been discontinued
Apr 19, 2014 10:58:12 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Here's an extensive comparison.
http://mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
http://mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
That is almost a year old and I couldn't find part 2 or 3.
Apr 19, 2014 10:58:12 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Here's an extensive comparison.
http://mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
http://mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/446-70-200-showdown-pt1-tamron-vs-canon-vs-nikon
That is almost a year old and I couldn't find part 2 or 3.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.