Jump to content


Sigma F2.8 70-200mm Or Canon F2.8 70-200 L?

5 replies to this topic

#1 ddmckinney1954


    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 457 posts
  • Location:Lynchburg, Virginia
  • Interests:obviously photography, animals, piano, stocks

Posted 26 August 2006 - 03:46 AM

I have been waivering on these two lenses for three months. If you go to the Fred Miranda site and look at both reviews of each of these lenses, you find both to be excellent lenses. BUT, the Canon L is considerably more expensive than the Sigma. Could anybody give me the input on which to buy?

ddmckinney1954 blink.gif

#2 snakeman


    Super Member

  • Advanced Members 50
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts
  • Interests:Wildlife photography & S N A K E S

Posted 07 May 2007 - 03:22 PM

The reason for the price difference is simple. The glass in a Canon L lens is made of the highest quality, i have the 100 - 400 IS USM L lens and believe me, you will not be dissapointed in the 70 - 200 L lens.
You get what you pay for.
Hope this helps, Rob

It's not a sin to love wildlife, we need it to survive GET INVOLVED

Click here if you dare

#3 mwookie



  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Location:US

Posted 07 May 2007 - 08:35 PM

I have the 70-200 2.8L and it has saved me more than once. I upgraded from a lower end Sigma lens and have been absolutely amazed at the quality. I look at my images at 100% and think, "this is way this lens cost me my first-born child" (don't tell me wife).

"Insanity is hereditary - you get it from your children." Sam Levenson
New Mexico Design Company Projects (Stock Photo Search Engine Learn how to sell your photos)

#4 tumrumble


    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Location:new jersey, USA
  • Interests:Nature photography.

Posted 11 May 2007 - 11:41 PM

Spending on quality lens is smart. A good lens will improve your images better than just about anything including your choice of camera except for the expertise of the person behind the camera. Investing in quality lens is a good way to go. Cameras will become obsolete but lenses will last much longer. Canon L lenses are worth the money if you really care about the quality of your images.

#5 Crimsonblood


    Super Member

  • Advanced Members 50
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Boulder CO, Powell WY

Posted 12 July 2007 - 01:42 AM

I have been using the Canon 70-200mm f/4 L for a few months now and have been more than pleased with it. The glass is simply the best out there and when compared to the Sigma f/2.8 70-200 the Canon f/4 out-preformed it in both hand-held and tripod-mounted tests.

If you are concerned with the price of the Canon f/2.8, the f/4 is a great alternative. While you lose some speed with the aperature, you still get the L quality. A new one can be bought for just over $500.

Best of luck with your decision!


#6 markgoldstein


    Super Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,110 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, United Kingdom

Posted 13 July 2007 - 11:41 AM

There's also a newer Image Stabilised version of the lens that Tim is referring to - a lot more expensive though.
Mark Goldstein
Editor, PhotographyBLOG

Reply to this topic


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users