70-200 Canon or Sigma?
Apr 19, 2014 11:13:53 #
Apr 19, 2014 11:31:09 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Shady wrote:
The canon 70x200 has been discontinued
Yes, the IS-I has been discontinued. The current Canon models are
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1450)
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2500)
Those are four expensive letters! :-)
Apr 19, 2014 11:35:13 #
amehta wrote:
Yes, the IS-I has been discontinued. The current Canon models are
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1450)
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2500)
Those are four expensive letters! :-)
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM ($1450)
* Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2500)
Those are four expensive letters! :-)
Yes this is true; The poster was not clear on which one's his was a blanket statement?
Apr 19, 2014 13:19:48 #
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?
If you were wanting to get to 400mm with a 2X TC with excellent IQ and cost was not an object - you would/should want the Canon II version ! If you are not going to 400mm with a 2X TC - and only using a 1.4X TC, then any of the other options are mostly equal in IQ. If you are never going to use a TC, any of the cheaper options are definitely equal. The Canon II version is, ultimately the highest IQ with or without TC. I hope you are ready to deal with the weight and size of these lenses. Otherwise, maybe you should be considering the F4 version.
Apr 19, 2014 13:53:22 #
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?
In my opinion the price straight away should tell you all you need to know. How does the lower priced company get to that price? Cheaper glass? Cheaper components? Regardless of who's making it there's no such thing as cheap quality, never has been never will be.
Apr 19, 2014 15:02:58 #
jimmya wrote:
In my opinion the price straight away should tell you all you need to know. How does the lower priced company get to that price? Cheaper glass? Cheaper components? Regardless of who's making it there's no such thing as cheap quality, never has been never will be.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 19, 2014 17:38:06 #
jimmya wrote:
In my opinion the price straight away should tell you all you need to know. How does the lower priced company get to that price? Cheaper glass? Cheaper components? Regardless of who's making it there's no such thing as cheap quality, never has been never will be.
(y) absolutely! My mind is made up!
Apr 19, 2014 18:42:52 #
jimmya wrote:
In my opinion the price straight away should tell you all you need to know. How does the lower priced company get to that price? Cheaper glass? Cheaper components? Regardless of who's making it there's no such thing as cheap quality, never has been never will be.
Perhaps you should check out the testing of the lens before you make such a harsh statement. Just saying.
Apr 19, 2014 18:47:12 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
(y) absolutely! My mind is made up!
:thumbup:
UHH is an excellent place for validation, it helps to know we're not making the decision by ourselves. :-)
Apr 19, 2014 19:39:45 #
traveler90712 wrote:
Perhaps you should check out the testing of the lens before you make such a harsh statement. Just saying.
:thumbup:
Apr 19, 2014 20:41:26 #
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?
If you want the very best in the line go for the Canon. The others are a better value and are good enough where you may not see a difference. It depends on how fussy you are and your shooting preferences.
Apr 19, 2014 20:49:23 #
I have no problem with the 70-200MM F2.8, I am not shooting for a living only for my own pleasure. I pick up a few $$$ doing ice hockey and football games for some leagues. So I am happy.... Check YouTube too for reviews of the lenses that you are thinking of purchasing. Good luck for what ever you do and keep us posted.
MaggieMay1978 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a 70-200 2.8 but there is a price difference between the canon and Sigma and with the older canon version of the 70-200 anyone have any opinions?
Apr 19, 2014 20:52:07 #
Brooklyn-Camera wrote:
I have no problem with the 70-200MM F2.8, I am not shooting for a living only for my own pleasure. I pick up a few $$$ doing ice hockey and football games for some leagues. So I am happy.... Check YouTube too for reviews of the lenses that you are thinking of purchasing. Good luck for what ever you do and keep us posted.
wow-awesome pictures... :) :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Apr 20, 2014 11:23:39 #
RegisG wrote:
It is interesting that there is double the price for telephoto vs macro. Both are 70-200 2.8 DI. $1400 vs $700)
Higher priced on has VC. That's only difference I can tell from description...
I'm curious too vs the canon
RegisG
Higher priced on has VC. That's only difference I can tell from description...
I'm curious too vs the canon
RegisG
I've been window shopping for a 70-200 f2.8 and noticed the difference in price for the Tamron...then I did a comparison. Here's a link to it...much more glass in the more expensive version. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Tamron_70-200mm_f_2.8_Di_LD_IF_Macro_AF_Lens_for_Sony_Alpha_%26_Minolta_SLR_vs_Tamron_SP_70-200mm_f_2.8_Di_USD_Zoom_Lens_for_Sony/BHitems/539406-REG_892852-REG
Apr 20, 2014 22:02:14 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.