C100: Canon 70-200 IS II vs. Sigma 50-150 EX OS?

L

LeavingTheCandy

Well-known member
Considering each and know the quality of the Canon well.
How's the Sigma stack-up optically? The stabilization work as well?
Thx
 
Awesome. Thanks.
I suppose both are great and I agree...like the range of the Sigma more.
How's the stabilization on it?
Thx
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Well according to DxO, the Sigma has it beat by a little bit. But for me it was more about the focal length, and the 50-150 was more useable for what I do so that's what I went with.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...-HSM-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-70D___408_895_352_895
Click to expand...

Since DxO believes the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is worse than the previous Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM version, I will not take that data to compare with other lenses. Better to test yourself before spending your money on such recommendations.
 
indiawilds said:
Since DxO believes the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM is worse than the previous Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM version, I will not take that data to compare with other lenses. Better to test yourself before spending your money on such recommendations.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure how you are getting those figures as it clearly shows the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM out scoring the older version by 3 points.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...SM-on-Canon-EOS-70D___408_895_352_895_254_895

Edit: Double check what camera you have selected as it affects the performance numbers,
I put them all under the 70D because it's a crop sensor like the C100, and the 50-150 is only for crop sensors.
 
Last edited:
Why go off-brand if you don't have to?

Personally I like the 70-200F4 from canon.

Now going off brand..

Increasingly the camera is talking to the lens, now if that chat breaks down then if you are fully in Canonland then there is only one company to blame.. Canon.

Ive had issues over the years - Sigma not talking to Nikon, and also with (non Hassy) medium format backs+Hassy bodies, both companies blamed the other leaving me in a hole.

And Canon could do some trick where the FW does not work so well if offbrands.

Now a lens like the 11-16 Id go offbrand because there is not a Canon version, but generally id keep it in house. I guess most users here maybe have not had their gear long enough for it to be falling apart - when it does you want a simple service chain.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Well according to DxO, the Sigma has it beat by a little bit.
Click to expand...

Pixel peeping and studying test charts is all good and well, but it doesn't show the whole picture (pun intended). There's more to an image than just sharpness and test scores. Each lens has it's own characteristics beyond the specs and it's important to find the one that works best for you.
My own opinion? I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and it's hands down the best lens I've ever used. There's just a certain quality about shooting interviews with it that makes the clients go "ooooh!" as soon as I show them the shots.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Pixel peeping and studying test charts is all good and well, but it doesn't show the whole picture (pun intended). There's more to an image than just sharpness and test scores. Each lens has it's own characteristics beyond the specs and it's important to find the one that works best for you.
My own opinion? I have a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II and it's hands down the best lens I've ever used. There's just a certain quality about shooting interviews with it that makes the clients go "ooooh!" as soon as I show them the shots.
Click to expand...


Of course, it's all subjective. The numbers don't mean jack if it's not the look your going for.
 
I spent three weeks doing some serious comparing, contrasting, and actually shooting with several long range fast zoom options. I've tried:

Sigma 50-150/2.8
Sigma 70-200/2.8 Macro
Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM OS

Canon 70-200/2.8 MKII (started it all for me)
Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS
Canon 70-200/4

Tamron 70-200/2.8 Di Macro
Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC

Here's the sum of it:

IMAGE STABILIZATION: Sigma OS can't compare to Canon or Tamron, and Tamron VC kills Canon IS in the 70-200/2.8. Both at 200, the Tamron looked like it was on a tripod coming off of my shoulder, 200 on the Canon still had a pleasant "floaty" look to it.

SHARPNESS: Tamron VC or Macro and Canon MKII 70-200 are neck and neck sharpness, with the Canon just barely taking it away at the long end wide open. The 70-200/4 is sharp wide open, but odd man out because it's the slowest. Sigma couldn't hang at the long end, any of the zooms, but did respectably well in the short range. That's not why I"m getting a 70-200/2.8, though, it's for the reach.

BOKEH: Tamron and Sigma kill bokeh. Sigma's bokeh on all three zooms (same for their primes) remains circular through most of the stops, and creamy. Tamron follows Sigma but with "sharper" rendition of OOF areas, I actually like them both, but sort of lean toward Tamron now. Canon Bokeh's still good, not far off. In comparing I could see myself swaying to the other bands.

MECHANICAL: Canon... all day. Sigma follows, Tamron is THE worse for video/filmmaking. The 70-200 Macro Di at least has something the others do not, hard stops, but from about 25 feet to infinity, you have to breathe on the lens really hard to focus, as any slight adjustment pulls like mad. The 70-200/2.8 MKII, and the 4, cannot be matched by either of these brands.

BUILD QUALITY: Canon at the top, Sigma and Tamron close to each other, give or take a few pointers.

FOCAL RANGE: Sigma's 50 looks like a 50, Canon's 70-200/2.8 MKII's 70 is more like 75, and the same goes for the Tamron zooms. Something to keep in mind.

COLOR: Too subjective really, but Canon gives off a very warm inviting glow, Tamron follows suit and feels more "acrylic" versus the Canon's "oil", and Sigma's more watercolor, leaning toward a cold image with slightly pinkish flesh tones.

OVERALL IMAGE: Canon's MKII 70-200 sits at the top of the heap, it's just got something wild about it that I don't see in many other Canon lenses. I've heard the 100/2 IS looks and feels the same, so that's cool. Tamron is very close to Canon, if you like more saturated hues, although I really like Sigma lenses, I feel like these zooms miss the mark for my purposes which be moving pictures.

My choice was made on the fact that I needed to have a matching set of glass... which means if I went for the 70-200MKII (disregarding the cost even used) I would have had to shell out for better Canon glass to match it, and I still do not feel that all Canon glass would be created equal after spending time with the 70-200.

Although I started this search because I wanted a stabilized 70-200/2.8, and the 70-200/4 was an "okay" alternative but too slow for me, I actually fell into the Tamron Di Macro 70-200/2.8 (non stabilized) and feel that it's a damned strong value. The only thing I miss on this lens is VC (Vibration Control, Tamron's IS). It's close enough to the 70-200/2.8 MKII to satisfy me and definitely cost one fourth of what I would have paid for the better lens used. It also allowed me to stretch down into Tamron's line-up of zooms to match, and they're quite affordable. My next piece of glass will surely be the 24-70/2.8 VC.

Here's some footage shot mostly with the Canon MKII (there's some Zeiss Otus in there as well):
https://vimeo.com/86378280

Here's the first day footage out with the Tamron 70-200/2.8 (I've since gotten a lot better at actually doing handheld 200mm after being forced to re-learn, so take the shake with a grain of salt):

https://vimeo.com/86964327

Happy hunting!
 
I should have added, to help frame things, that I understand once you actually shoot with the 70-200/2.8 MKII for an extended period of time, in various situations (work and play) you are unable to cope with the fact that 1. Nothing else compares in this area or at this price and 2. you have to give it back to someone some day, and what the heck will you do once you are rendered powerless?


xD

Maybe not that serious, but yeah kinda that serious. The Tamron might be a bit rough around the edges as far as handling goes, but the image definitely put me at ease.
 
Tim Nitsch said:
Not quite sure how you are getting those figures as it clearly shows the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM out scoring the older version by 3 points.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compa...SM-on-Canon-EOS-70D___408_895_352_895_254_895

Edit: Double check what camera you have selected as it affects the performance numbers,
I put them all under the 70D because it's a crop sensor like the C100, and the 50-150 is only for crop sensors.
Click to expand...


Hi Tim,
I compared the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens vs 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM vs 70-200 USM lens with full frame sensor (5D III) and 1D III (APS-H sensor 1.3 factor). DxO findings suggest that the new version II lens has more distortion and more vignetting. That is not what I have seen in the field. I sincerely believe there is some flaw in their test. So in my previous post I had suggested that the OP test the lens himself/herself before buying.

I agree with Kholi's assessment that the Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II lens is a special lens.

Two days back I did a corporate shoot with C300 and this lens. Then I used a Canon 1D Mark IV and EF 24-105 f4 L IS USM lens for a portfolio shoot. Though the lighting was the same but the C300 files looked way better. The client immediately asked me to pull a frame grab from the C300 even though the file size is smaller. I have now decided to only use the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens in such shoots and if any other lens is needed then will use cine primes.
 
I have the 85 and 135 cine primes. I tested the 70-200 2.8 II and the f4 . I found the "look" very similar and went with the f4 for lighter weight. Though, if I could only have one of the 85, 135 or 70-200, hands down the 2.8 II. I wouldn't be as happy, but it would cover 85% of the territory. I did try the sigma 50-150. loved it but decided to stick with canon look.
 
If you're okay with the speed, the 70-200/4 L is definitely the next choice IMO.

I personally just wanted a 2.8.
 
I do want to say this. After testing most of what is out there and owning a Canon c500 and 1d c and investing heavily in CN E primes and zooms. If I was only doing personal projects that didn't require client perception of "quality" and wanted a really portable rig, I would go with the C500 with Odyssey 7q and Tokina 11-16, sigma 18-35, sigma 24-105, sigma 50-150, and zeiss otus 55mm. You would have IS when you need it, low light when you need it, wide to tele, and all match up pretty well, and lens cost about 8500 which would let you splurge on the C500.
 
Speed isn't much of a problem with a C100. I love the look of my 70-200 f/4...my favorite lens. My old Tamron 17-50 non-VC is still my most used lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top