d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > Graphic Design > Photography > Canon 70-200 2.8 Vs. Sigma 70-200 2.8
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 1115Replies: 15Track Topic
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#1
Jan 17 2015 01:42pm
Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses? I keep seeing people compare them and say you'll get the same IQ from the Sigma that you would the Canon. It's just hard to believe because the price difference is so huge.

Does the IS make that big of a difference or am I missing something?
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#2
Jan 17 2015 11:43pm
This forum is so dead :(

Okay how about comparing 70-200 2.8 L IS > 85 1.2 > 135 1.2
Member
Posts: 35,075
Joined: Jul 26 2006
Gold: 125.00
#3
Jan 17 2015 11:49pm
I would probably just youtube up "70-200 comparison". You'll find some from Tony Northrup, as well as others. There's a lot of reviews that flat-out ignore things that they shouldn't (ie. focus breathing... which essentially can make a lens more like a 70-135 when shooting under normal conditions).

I don't shoot with Canon, nor do I have the Nikon equivalents to those lenses. The most expensive lens I own is the 18-35 f1.8 Art Sigma lens, nothing in the $2000 area.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jan 17 2015 11:49pm
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#4
Jan 18 2015 12:05am
Quote (Canadian_Man @ Jan 17 2015 11:49pm)
I would probably just youtube up "70-200 comparison". You'll find some from Tony Northrup, as well as others. There's a lot of reviews that flat-out ignore things that they shouldn't (ie. focus breathing... which essentially can make a lens more like a 70-135 when shooting under normal conditions).

I don't shoot with Canon, nor do I have the Nikon equivalents to those lenses. The most expensive lens I own is the 18-35 f1.8 Art Sigma lens, nothing in the $2000 area.


I have watched a couple of videos. I was unhappy with the conditions they were shooting in (super bright midday sun type light, I would never go out in that) and that focus didn't seem to be as big of an issue to them as bokeh. Bokeh is very important to me and all but so is having my subject be tack sharp.

I'll see if I can find some others unless you have some good ones to link me ^^
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#5
Jan 19 2015 05:09am
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 18 2015 03:43pm)
This forum is so dead :(

Okay how about comparing 70-200 2.8 L IS > 85 1.2 > 135 1.2


Dead because no one here shoots pictures ha

The 70-200 2.8 IS is bloody heavy and a pain in the ass to sling around but they're pretty sick.

If you're crazy about bokeh why not just go the 135L?

Also, I wouldnt buy L primes, I'd go straight for the Art Series Sigma primes, love em. Cheap, sharp and full bodied :)

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jan 19 2015 05:12am
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#6
Jan 19 2015 09:51am
Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 19 2015 05:09am)
Dead because no one here shoots pictures ha

The 70-200 2.8 IS is bloody heavy and a pain in the ass to sling around but they're pretty sick.

If you're crazy about bokeh why not just go the 135L?

Also, I wouldnt buy L primes, I'd go straight for the Art Series Sigma primes, love em. Cheap, sharp and full bodied :)


This is why I love you xD I wanted to ask about the 135 but after getting no responses I just started youtubing videos comparing. I actually really like that lens.

I prefer shooting wide open at all times, obviously my photos won't be that sharp with an 85 1.8. I have to put it at 2.5 before it even starts getting sharp. I doubt I would have been happy with a 2.8 like I will the 135 f2. Is it pretty good in low light situations too?

Also I shoot pictures but I'm not always consistent :P. I might take photos a few days in a row then nothing for a couple of weeks.

This post was edited by Xandriia on Jan 19 2015 09:52am
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#7
Jan 19 2015 03:16pm
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 20 2015 01:51am)
This is why I love you xD I wanted to ask about the 135 but after getting no responses I just started youtubing videos comparing. I actually really like that lens.

I prefer shooting wide open at all times, obviously my photos won't be that sharp with an 85 1.8. I have to put it at 2.5 before it even starts getting sharp. I doubt I would have been happy with a 2.8 like I will the 135 f2. Is it pretty good in low light situations too?

Also I shoot pictures but I'm not always consistent :P. I might take photos a few days in a row then nothing for a couple of weeks.


Depends on your definition of sharp.. i mean wide open will be razor thin in terms of focal point so a slight miss will make it look out of focus. Your camera body will bea big factor in achieving focus.

The 135 will be fine in low light. Again, your camera body will make the difference. What are you kicking around with?

I shoot 2-3 times a week now... gets tiring but i love it nonetheless :D

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jan 19 2015 03:17pm
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#8
Jan 19 2015 03:43pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 19 2015 03:16pm)
Depends on your definition of sharp.. i mean wide open will be razor thin in terms of focal point so a slight miss will make it look out of focus. Your camera body will bea big factor in achieving focus.

The 135 will be fine in low light. Again, your camera body will make the difference.  What are you kicking around with?

I shoot 2-3 times a week now... gets tiring but i love it nonetheless :D


Yeah, I've been trying to work on that anyway. I think I've got the eyes and instead it's the nose, or hair slightly behind. But that's me, not my camera.

I've got the 5D II. Only glass so far is the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8. This is going to be a huge step up for me.

I would if I had things to shoot! Cannot wait until we move back to TN, I'll have way more opportunities.
Member
Posts: 14,659
Joined: Jan 27 2007
Gold: 78.16
#9
Jan 21 2015 01:54am
Quote (Xandriia @ Jan 20 2015 07:43am)
Yeah, I've been trying to work on that anyway. I think I've got the eyes and instead it's the nose, or hair slightly behind. But that's me, not my camera.

I've got the 5D II. Only glass so far is the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8. This is going to be a huge step up for me.

I would if I had things to shoot! Cannot wait until we move back to TN, I'll have way more opportunities.


Well if you're using the upper focal points on that 5d2 in vertical format it could well be the camera... the 5d2 is known for its outter focal point misses!

What are you doing in TN?

This post was edited by lithfkn on Jan 21 2015 01:55am
Member
Posts: 32,538
Joined: Dec 6 2007
Gold: 1,945.00
#10
Jan 21 2015 02:32pm
Quote (lithfkn @ Jan 21 2015 01:54am)
Well if you're using the upper focal points on that 5d2 in vertical format it could well be the camera... the 5d2 is known for its outter focal point misses!

What are you doing in TN?


Really? I think I do. I use BBF if I'm on AF but 98% of the time I manually focus so I think it's mostly my fault haha.

We lived there when we first got together, we both want to go back. I hate Oklahoma. The area we were at kind of has it all, big city, mountains, springs, woods. Perfect!
Go Back To Photography Topic List
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact