A&P Canon 70-200 f4l or Simga 70-200 2.8

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by turbodude, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Both have great quality, but is the L glass that much better? I prefer the speed of the 2.8, but i also like the compactness of the f4l. What would you do? Anyone have experiences with both?
     
  2. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. mattsb2000

    mattsb2000 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    61,666
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    San Bernardino, CA
    I have the 4l.

    It's never dissapointed me.
     
  4. Hippy

    Hippy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,076
    Likes Received:
    0
    i have the sigma with a 1.4x teleconverter. nice ass lense, fast AF, good glass, good contrast. also i shoot a nikon.
     
  5. itr452

    itr452 VTEC motherfucker, GOT ANY?

    Joined:
    May 15, 2000
    Messages:
    4,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Just picked up a 70-200 f/4L tonight, didn't get a chance to take some shots. It's weird because to me; the 70-200 f/4 was HUGE, I can't imagine how huge the sigma is.

    Based on price/performance i'd get the Sigma immediately, but for size considerations and IQ i'd pick the Canon. The fact that the canon 1.4 teleconverter doesn't do much to hinder the Canon 70-200 f/4L speaks volumes of the IQ on the Canon. It actually depends on what you use the lens for. If i'm inside i'm gonna be using a flash most of the time regardless.
     
  6. nicklk

    nicklk New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    23,760
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    :werd:
     
  7. brasheye

    brasheye Rotary Crew

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    6,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney - AU
    I was in the same situation.

    Went with the F4L and couldn't be happier.

    :hs:
     
  8. SLED

    SLED build an idiot proof device and someone else will

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    28,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, like a bauce!
    when in doubt, go with the Canon lens IMO
     
  9. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    damn i had my mind set for a second there. however i think that extra stop is going to help greatly with my needs. i am probably going to have to try both.
     
  10. IntheWorks

    IntheWorks windin film.. takin pics Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    earth
    if you NEED the 2.8, go sigma. If you're fine with f/4 go for the L
     
  11. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    i shoot alot of concerts and cars at night, so i figure i need the 2.8. Actually come to think of it, none of my lenses are slower than 2.8. I don;t want to start now. :)
     
  12. .chris

    .chris You drown before the water lets you in. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    53,261
    Likes Received:
    526
    Location:
    954
    bawllllin
     
  13. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
  14. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    Canon 70-200 2.8 IS
     
  15. SLED

    SLED build an idiot proof device and someone else will

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    28,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, like a bauce!
    I am sooo close to ordering this exact lens, but cannot decide if I need IS or not :hsugh:
     
  16. crazykid

    crazykid New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    I jsut got a sigma 70-200 2.8... its AWESOME!

    So far I love it... its fast, crisp... Id go with it.

    I got mine used for a good deal.
     
  17. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    :coolugh: Wanna buy mine? Brand new without the UPC on the box? $1500?
     
  18. IntheWorks

    IntheWorks windin film.. takin pics Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    earth
    You know, looking at examples pics of the 2, I can't justify the price difference over the sigma.
     
  19. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    You pay for the image stabilization and pink ring.
     
  20. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    i wish i could afford the IS. I got around 600 to spend right now, looking for a sigma 2.8 without any issues.
     
  21. IntheWorks

    IntheWorks windin film.. takin pics Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    16,928
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    earth
    Is IS really that important? I haven't shot anything where I could see it being a benefit.
     
  22. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    i could see IS being important with 400mm or maybe 500mm. But I can handhold @ 200 about 1/60 or 1/30 posted against something.
     
  23. Redliner7

    Redliner7 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    740
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must have a rock steady grip. There's no way I could hand-hold that slow @ 200mm. I can pull off a 1/100th or maybe even a 1/80th...but not a 1/30th and still get tack-sharp photos.
     
  24. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    It helps.
     
  25. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    honestly i think its from shooting guns.
     

Share This Page