sigma 120-300 2.8 or canon 70-200 2.8l ,canon 10d

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004.

  1. i know its been asked before and most have said go for the canon ,but ive heard
    alot of good things about the sigma 120-300 2.8 on yahoo groups etc but
    definetly not here in this newsgroup .

    for $400.00 (between $1500.00- 1600.00 b&H )more i can get an extra 100 mm
    compared to the 2.8l 70- 200 mm is .

    anyone have any real experience with these 2 going head to head on a 10d body

    i know there is ont any shops around here that i can rent one for the day from
    does anyone know of any in philadelphia ?.
    i could visit my brother and check this lense out too.
    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Mark M Guest


    The Canon 70-200 is FAR more useful/versatile for closer subjects.
    Remember that you've got a 1.6x crop/enlargement factor with the 10D, which
    means the widest you can go on the Sigma is nearly 200mm (192mm) in 35mm
    equiv. Are you really ONLY going to want a minimum equiv. of 192mm? The
    Canon can actually be used for a portrait lens at near 100mm equiv. at the
    wide (70mm) end, and is second to NONE in terms of
    sharpness/clarity/resolution in a zoom of this caliber.

    I have the 70-200 2.8 IS Canon, and it is absolutely incredible.
    Personally, if you can afford it, get teh IS version. It will leave the
    Sigma in the dust for hand-held shots.
    It will also hold value better...not to mention that you won't have to worry
    about future compatibility issues with Sigma lenses on future Canon bodies
    (they are infamous for this).

    Personally, I would not spend anything on the Sigma if I could grab the
    above Canon.
    It's ONLY real competition/equal comes from Nikon, and Nikon doesn't fit on
    your 10D. :)
    Mark M, Mar 3, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Tom Monego Guest

    The build quality on Sigmas suck, and as Mark said 70mm is a much more useful
    focal length than 120mm. Though the IS Canon is a wonderful lens it is much$.
    Tamron lenses have a better build quality than Sigma. We have 2 Tamrons a
    cheap 17-35 f3.5-4.5 and a 28-105 f2.8. Both have been good to us.

    Tom Monego, Mar 3, 2004
  4. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Canon has three 70-200mm L-lenses, 70-200mm f/4 USM L, 70-200mm f/2,8 USM L
    and 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS. There is roughly a 2x and 3x in price compared
    to the f/4 version. If you can live with the f/4 it is a fine piece of
    glass, but if you need low light capability and not just crank up the ISO on
    the 10D, then go for the top one with IS.

    I don't quite see that the 70-200mm range is an alternative to 120-300mm
    although they overlap it is almost two complementary lenses. If is the
    longer range you're interested in then maybe you should consider the Canon
    100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS at a price between the two more expensive
    70-200mm above.
    Hans Kruse, Mar 3, 2004
  5. im going to get the 70-200 with is usm ,thanks for the input , ive heard way
    more bad than good about substituting a sigma for some l glass , case closed .

    any experience with the 1/4 or 2x extender on the 70-200 with the 10d ?.

    i take it you would be losing a stop ?

    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004
  6. thanks for the reply tom ,im going to remain a purist and get the canon .
    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004
  7. thanks for the reply hans, nice pictures of the polar bear .
    seems like that is a slower lense for an l series ?.
    have you ever used it ?.
    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 3, 2004
  8. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Mark M Guest

    I've had excellent results with the 1.4x on the 70-200, and lose
    one stop, but you're still at f4--not bad.
    I haven't bought the 2x mainly because I also have the 100-400 IS L.
    Mark M, Mar 3, 2004
  9. have you been using .the1.4 for sports shots indoors ?.

    i want the 2.8 for low light focus , actually i don't think that i would really
    need the extender indoors but im just curious ?.

    the 100-400 do you use that for sports shots at all ?.
    Nickyvonbuskergr, Mar 4, 2004
  10. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Mark M Guest

    I have used 100-400 for sports, but the speed of focus on the 2.8 is FAR
    Amazingly fast focus both indoors and (of course) out.
    Mark M, Mar 4, 2004
  11. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Hans Kruse Guest

    No I have not tried the 100-400mm lens, but this is one I may consider for
    the future if I go for a longer lens in addition to the 70-200mm. But at
    400mm f/5.6 seems quite normal also for alternatives. At the 100mm end f/4.5
    is bit slow, but not that bad.
    Hans Kruse, Mar 4, 2004
  12. Nickyvonbuskergr

    Hils Guest

    Mark M wrote
    AIUI the Sigma 120-300/2.8 is fine optically, the problems reported have
    been with inconsistent AF (no real surprise there). It's a shame that
    Nikon and/or Canon haven't taken this ball and run with it: add IS/VR,
    make it fully AF compatible, and even at double the Sigma's price I for
    one would very likely buy one.
    Hils, Mar 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.