Canon 70-200 2.8L or Sigma?

[justJeff]

I am torn between these two lenses. The reviews at photozone say that the Sigma is better at some focal lengths, but that the Cannon is better at each extreme end. Everything I've read has said about the same thing, the build quality of both seems to be comparable. If they were the same price I'd probably still have the same quandry, but would probably lean towards the Canon, but the Sigma is about $300 less.

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

[aparmley]

IF you can afford the Canon I wouldn't spend one second thinking about the Sigma. . . but thats just me. ;)

Why? I've seen plenty of threads created by new owners of the Sigma and their images looked horrible - in need of calibration. Why even bother at that price point. . . spend a few more bones and get the pro stuff.

[DonSchap]

that TAmROn is preparing to release a SP AF70~210mm f/2.8 XR Di LD lens at Fotokina, in Köln, Germany, this year. (See link below)

http://www.photokina-cologne.com/wEnglisch/photokina/global/virtuelle_pressefaecher/veranstalter_pressefachW3DnavidW2680.shtml?aktion= pfach&p1id=kmpresse_photokinae&format=jscript&base=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.photokina%2Dcologne.com%2FwE nglisch%2Fphotokina%2Fglobal%2Fvirtuelle%5Fpressef aecher%2Fveranstalter%5FpressefachW3DnavidW2680.sh tml&tp=default&search=&pmid=kmeigen.kmpresse_1147268325&start=0&anzahl=10&channel=kmeigen&language=e

While not yet sporting "IS" technology (but who knows?), this baby is suppose to rival the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM with no problem.

Man, I was right there... ready to pull the trigger on a EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS USM... and this great news shot that idea all to heck! Sure, I'll wait. I know that TAmROn would never release a lens like this unless they absolutely sure it was a winner. This is the only "gap" in their line-up. If it comes in at the usual TAmROn weight... we're looking at roughly 24 oz., instead of the Canon's 46 oz. I tell ya, my bag is ready, willing and able to accomodate that lens. :D

[Vich]

I am torn between these two lenses. The reviews at photozone say that the Sigma is better at some focal lengths, but that the Cannon is better at each extreme end. Everything I've read has said about the same thing, the build quality of both seems to be comparable. If they were the same price I'd probably still have the same quandry, but would probably lean towards the Canon, but the Sigma is about $300 less.

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.Agree with Andy on this. Also his comment "maybe that's just me".

The MTF readings show the Canon slightly superior. From what I've heard the Canon focus is better. Canon is weather sealed, is the Sigma? That could mean a lot, and for sure is expensive to achieve. The better warranty on Sigma would be nice, but maybe it's more needed considering the weather sealing.



that TAmROn is preparing to release a SP AF70~210mm f/2.8 XR Di LD lens at Fotokina, in Köln, Germany, this year. While not yet sporting "IS" technology (but who knows?), this baby is suppose to rival the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM with no problem.

Man, I was right there... ready to pull the trigger on a EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS USM... and this great news shot that idea all to heck! Sure, I'll wait. I know that TAmROn would never release a lens like this unless they absolutely sure it was a winner. This is the only "gap" in their line-up. If it comes in at the usual TAmROn weight... we're looking at roughly 24 oz., instead of the Canon's 46 oz. I tell ya, my bag is ready, willing and able to accomodate that lens. :D
Don, be straight with us. Are you a plant for Tamron? They make fine lenses but aren't known for IS - why in the world would you bypass probably the best tele-zoom in that focal range, with IS, for a promise? You already said it's the weight and that's valid, still the Canon is tried and true, proven, and a real pro would never think of gambling critical moments on unproven equipment (in any field, not just photography). As an amature, I suppose you have that luxury.

OK, don't mean to flame you. It's just that Tamron seems to be your solution and answer to everything. Also; if you didn't get so many near best lenses to cover basically the same range, you could easily afford a few of the very best. Is this flawed thinking?

[justJeff]

Don, out of curiousity, do you have any children named Tamron?

[aparmley]

Also; if you didn't get so many near best lenses to cover basically the same range, you could easily afford a few of the very best. Is this flawed thinking?

Vich I've already gone down that road with Don. . . My arguement was that for everthing he had purchased he could have the 24-70 and 70-200 but instead he has a bag full of Tamron stuff - he explained his position in a way that was good enough for me to understand. . . I mean if I think about everything that I have purchased in the past year [mostly non photography stuff] I could have a great line up as well . . . But we choose our purchases here or there not concerned with how hindsight will judge them, only to end up a year or so later judging those past decisions with the luxury of hindsight. . . . But, you're quite right in your thinking Vich.

If Tamron works for Don and hes excited about it - Good for Don! Thats all we can say. . . Its nice to know exactly how he'll respond to a lense inquiry though. . . LOL :D And his format convention is easily recognizable anywhere! ;)

[DonSchap]

Don't you guys think I do a lot of research before I jump up? Well, I do.

I spent the better part of the day with the pros and specialists over at Calumet Photographic, in Bensenville, today. I may go to the Chicago show, also, tomorrow. Heck, SIGMA couldn't even bother to provide a rep at the conference/show.

Cripes, I covered:
lighting; lenses; "purple fringe" issues; "CA" Chromatic Aberration; "IS" Image Stabilization; lens coatings... focusing irregularities... high-contrast photography... digital interfacing between Apples and PCs... color-matching

Good Lord... a straight three hours of questions, fun and games. Heck, they were asking me questions.

Personally, I could not bring myself, after all that, to put up $1650 for the Canon "staple" lens. Not when I may be able to do the same shooting with a much lighter and equally gifted TAmROn. I figure it'll come in at around $850-$900, just to bust SIGMA's chops.

Look, you guys may get off on carrying around all that metal... personally, I just can't hump it anymore. The lighter I can get my bag on a shoot, the better, otherwise I'd have to hire Andy! (j/k, pal! ;) )

I can wait until Fotokina... it's only 2 months away (August). There, I am sure the true tale will be told. These reviewers are merciless, but TAmROn is still the best third-party manufacturer out there. They may not be first to the line, but you can be sure that when they get there... it works. So poo-poo TAmROn all you want... but when push comes to shove, I believe they will be there... with a winner. :D

[Vich]

Vich I've already gone down that road with Don. . . My arguement was that for everthing he had purchased he could have the 24-70 and 70-200 but instead he has a bag full of Tamron stuff - he explained his position in a way that was good enough for me to understand. . . I mean if I think about everything that I have purchased in the past year [mostly non photography stuff] I could have a great line up as well . . . But we choose our purchases here or there not concerned with how hindsight will judge them, only to end up a year or so later judging those past decisions with the luxury of hindsight. . . . But, you're quite right in your thinking Vich.

If Tamron works for Don and hes excited about it - Good for Don! Thats all we can say. . . Its nice to know exactly how he'll respond to a lense inquiry though. . . LOL :D And his format convention is easily recognizable anywhere! ;)
Yeah, gotta make room for hindsight. I'm guilty of same. In the past year, I've purchased 5 lenses that I've since sold or need to sell. Two (the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 50 f1.8) got a lot of use before being upgraded (to Canon 24-105L and Canon 50 f1.4), 2 were results of poorly informed decisions, the the final (Canon 135L) in NEVER should have sold (boo hoo).

However; I'm in the process of cleaning up my lens funk. Old lenses sell for a healthy portion of their new price. I think Don just isn't hurting for money enough to part with perfectly good lenses but is slightly cheap by not deciding to buy the best to start with. I say that with great empathy because I've done the same - just that he seems to have money to spare given the $$ he's sitting on with those extras.