70-200mm ƒ2.8 - Sigma or Canon?

I have both lenses.

Sigma 70-200 2.8 is really good. I read a lot of reviews on the Sigma and the majority was positive. Sigma's other lenses are a mixed bag. The Sigma 70-200 is a close contender in terms of quality and speed to the Canon's equivalent (mine is the 70-200/ 2.8 IS version). And the reason I went for Canon afterwards was the IS - greatly needed during speeches or press releases when I was too far for the flash to be effective or it wasn't allowed.

The difference is there but it's marginal. Sigma is slower in focusing (fractions of a second), not as sharp (only if you pixel-peep), but it's a lot lighter. It's a great value lens, and I still have reservations about selling it because it's a great backup lens.

Having never used the Sigma I feel that my opinion is a little one sided. But there is a reason that I have not used the Sigma.. The Canon is one of the best lenses in the whole range. I am sure that you have heard people who say to stick to Canon lenses and avoid third party, well I am one of those people. The 70-200mm L series are superb lenses. The f/2.8 is quite a bit heavier than the f/4 and if you add the IS on as well it becomes even heavier (and expensive). But if you can handle the weight and the price then the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful lens that shines in portrait photography.

I have a feeling that if you bought the Sigma then you would be thinking constantly about the Canon, and eventually just end up selling it to buy the better Canon lens.

You buy cheap, you buy twice.

Always stick to Canon!.

+++

Additional, here is a link to a review and details about the two lenses.. There is no contest really.

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70...

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-20...

.

I have a canon 70 to 200 2.8 L and it a great lens as are the rest of my canon 2.8 and 1.4 lens. I have used Sigma lens and have had good luck and made crystal clear images with them. The Sigma is about 1/2 the price of a canon, but the canon is a little smother and quieter in focusing.(or used to be). You might check out Tamron lens, I have 28 to 105mm f2.8 that I would put up against my canon's for sharpness. But again it not as quite as the canon's during focusing. If you know anyone that has these lens maybe you could take some picture and compare them.

My dear old dad used to say "When you're buying the tools for your business, buy the best, buy it once." This has proven to be good advice, and I've regretted it on the occasions I didn't listen and went cheap.

I've used sigma lenses (for shooting film) and they weren't bad, but were not quite as sharp as the Canon equivalent.

Enter digital - and the cheap lens gets worse. The CA in my 75-300 Canon EF is so bad I use it for a doorstop. Really. (I have one of the old ones - Canon reissued this lens without admitting the original was junk.)

Buy Canon Type L lenses - sharper without the CA problems. I would also recommend you go for a prime (fixed focal length lens). If you have a full frame sensor go for a 100 or 110 for portraiture, and if you have a smaller sensor (24mm) go for the 60 mm. Prime lenses are sharper with less CA.

Go with Canon, as its better quality than Sigma. You are trading cost over the quality here. its always better to have an original manufacturer's than third party lens, as like its already said original manufacturer's is better matched and better quality.

You won't "regret" the Sigma lens but it is always better to go with the OEM's lens (original equipment manufacturer).

Apart from the fact that they are normally better quality overall, they are also "matched" better to the cameras and the service will be better.

A

just my opinion as a pro photog...

Canon (and Nikon) glass is currently 1000x better than any third party.

Portrait photos are best shot with prime lenses.

hope that helps you decide.