A friend photographer had one, i attached it to my camera and did a simple test.
The left shot is with this suberb Canon lens: 70-200 f2.8 L USM (said to be the best lens in the world).
The right shot is with my Sigma 18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3.
I found out the L lens is sharp, with a freaking fast and precise focus. The lens do not extend when you zoom, everything is in place and solid. The colors are portrayed better too. And of course, you get f2.8 at 200mm. This is a win for itself.
For the sake of comparison
Canon L: US$ 2.200.
My Sigma: US$ 500.
It's a great lens, I've rented the IS version of this lens a few times and am constantly delighted by the sharpness, contrast and overall image quality. It's a heavy lens to walk around with all day!
Most of the L glass primes will have higher image quality than this though, so although it's an outstanding lens, I've never heard it referred to as the best in the world. The revised IS version is probably the best mid-telephoto zoom that Canon make, though.
For my long-shots I use the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM; in fact yesterday's photo was taken with this lens. It was coupled with the EF 2x II Extender so the image quality suffered a little bit, but overall it's an excellent lens! And @abirkill is quite right, it's a bit on the heavy side :)
If you would have compared the Canon 18-200 against the the Sigma 70-200, you would have seen very similar results, except that the Sigma would have come out on top.
@sudweeks@abirkill Is going with the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM worth the $1000 savings from the Canon? I am looking to get a really strong portrait lens in the next month.
@trbo If you can afford the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM then get it, it's a significant step up from the Sigma lens and a fair step up from the lens that the original poster is using (assuming he's correctly identified the lens he was borrowing as not being the newer and rarer 'II' model).
However, the Sigma is still a very capable lens, so if the Canon is very much stretching the budget then it shouldn't be discounted. However, I'd also consider the equivalently-priced Canon offering, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Obviously it only goes as wide as f/4.0, but it is again sharper than the Sigma, so if you can put up with the loss of a stop of light, for the same money it might be a better choice. It's also about half the weight of either of the f/2.8 offerings.
Not wishing to confuse the matter further, but if you're looking to get a really strong portrait lens, the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 are the two definitive portrait lenses in Canon's lineup -- obviously nowhere near as flexible as a telephoto lens, but worth considering if portraiture is your main aim.
@sudweeks yup. I know i am comparing wrong lenses.
They are not from the same categories.
I just compared what i had in my hands. This post does not have the ambition to be a qualified review. I just thought it would be nice for you folk to see a real life comparison.
@trbo - The Sigma does quite well against the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM, but like abirkill mention, the version II lens is significantly sharper across all focal lengths and all apertures. Check out the dpreview tests and you'll see the difference. Also when buying sigma, you need to make sure you buy from someone with a good return policy in case you get a bad copy. But for the money the sigma is a good lens, and it shouldn't be dismissed just because it's 3rd party lens.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Most of the L glass primes will have higher image quality than this though, so although it's an outstanding lens, I've never heard it referred to as the best in the world. The revised IS version is probably the best mid-telephoto zoom that Canon make, though.
Yes the 70-200 is the best lens that Canon has ever made, well that was until they make the second version not that long ago.
I own the second version of this lens and it is almost the only lens I use when photographing portraits.
It is sharp but as with all telephoto lens it has its sweet spot, which differs from lens to lens.
I took this photo not that long ago using the second version of this lens.
http://365project.org/agima/365/2012-07-31
The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM was made to compete against the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens, and it performs very well compared to the canon. http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=95,14&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=70,70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
If you would have compared the Canon 18-200 against the the Sigma 70-200, you would have seen very similar results, except that the Sigma would have come out on top.
There's a sharpness comparison between the Sigma and the Canon here, hover over the images to see the Canon photos. You can change zoom and aperture settings at the top. You can see that the Canon is significantly sharper, especially wide open:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=806&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
However, the Sigma is still a very capable lens, so if the Canon is very much stretching the budget then it shouldn't be discounted. However, I'd also consider the equivalently-priced Canon offering, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS. Obviously it only goes as wide as f/4.0, but it is again sharper than the Sigma, so if you can put up with the loss of a stop of light, for the same money it might be a better choice. It's also about half the weight of either of the f/2.8 offerings.
Not wishing to confuse the matter further, but if you're looking to get a really strong portrait lens, the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 are the two definitive portrait lenses in Canon's lineup -- obviously nowhere near as flexible as a telephoto lens, but worth considering if portraiture is your main aim.
They are not from the same categories.
I just compared what i had in my hands. This post does not have the ambition to be a qualified review. I just thought it would be nice for you folk to see a real life comparison.