|
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit
|
01-16-2006, 02:53 PM
|
#1
|
|
Mag Daddy
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bama: Roll Tide!
|
70-200 f2.8
Hey Guys,
I've been looking for a long time at the Canon L series 70-200 f2.8. I've used one that belongs to a friend of mine a few times and I love it. I just don't love the price. Now Sigma has a 70-200 f2.8 and I was wondering if anyone here has one and what you think about it. I've heard that Sigma zooms tend to be a little soft. The sharpness of images taken with the L series lens is one of the reasons I like it so much.
Thanks for your time.
__________________
Bryan
I'm not saying that stupidity should be punishable by death. But I do think we should remove all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.
|
|
|
01-16-2006, 03:08 PM
|
#2
|
|
Dodgynator
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: columbus, Ohio
|
The image quality is minimal but can be seen. If you are on a budget go with the sigma, unless you have a couple of hundred more to spend of better quality and the feel of a white lens then go for the Canon.
I have the canon 70-200 f/2.8 L and I LOVE IT! Sharp and fast, as you expect it to me.
Good luck
__________________
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O rly?
Feedback
|
|
|
01-16-2006, 03:10 PM
|
#3
|
|
Lets get faded..
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
some have said the sigma issharper. It surely isnt soft. Its a great lens, just as good as the canon l series.
|
|
|
01-16-2006, 03:47 PM
|
#4
|
|
Nationally Known
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: ~ Chicago, IL ~
|
Ive tested the Sigma and Canon, its true that the Sigma is sharp as the Canon in the center, but the corners it tends to be a bit softer then canon. For the price I wouldn't even worry about it. I would stick with the Sigma as long as you get test it out and check to make sure its a good glass.
|
|
|
01-16-2006, 03:51 PM
|
#5
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NC
|
i've got the canon and i LOVE it, my dad bought the sigma. It's almost as sharp but the colors are more saturated than they are on the canon. If you can't afford the canon the sigma is just as good for the price. I think he paid a little over 600 for a used one.
|
|
|
01-17-2006, 12:39 AM
|
#6
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Paris, France
|
In my opinion, don't buy the Sigma but the 70-200mm L f4 ! It is also excellent, just a little less luminous...
Thomas
__________________
P H O T O S - P A I N T B A L L
http://www.photos-paintball.com
Photo > EOS 20D - EF 70-200mm f/4 L - Sigma DC 18-50mm f/2.8 < Photo
Paintball > EGO 05 - Dye Boomstick .688 - VLocity - 1.1l 4500psi < Paintball
|
|
|
01-17-2006, 06:15 AM
|
#7
|
|
Mag Daddy
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bama: Roll Tide!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom [eXtraBALL]
In my opinion, don't buy the Sigma but the 70-200mm L f4 ! It is also excellent, just a little less luminous...
Thomas
|
thought about that. My primary use for the lens would be portraits, which the f4 would probably do just fine for. But, I would also want to be able to use it for low light action like high school football. I'm not sure that f4 would be able to handle that.
__________________
Bryan
I'm not saying that stupidity should be punishable by death. But I do think we should remove all the warning labels and let the problem take care of itself.
|
|
|
01-17-2006, 08:50 AM
|
#8
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NC
|
you can buy the f4 or for about 150 more you can get the sigma 2.8. If you can afford the 2.8 get the 2.8.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|