Comparison of EF 70-200/2.8L USM and Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM?

markism · 26th June 2003

Hi there,

I was just wondering if anyone has done a side-by-side comparison of the picture quality between the EF 70-200/2.8L (IS/non-IS) and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM? I am referring specifically to image quality, and in particular colour rendition and depth-of-field.

Thanks in advance!

tomshen · 26th June 2003

Why need to compare? The answer is clear: got money get L, short of money get Sigma. Both are good, L is better.

melly · 26th June 2003

Both are excellent lenses, of course the canon L having the slight edge... although it is moot on how big that difference is to some people... I'm fairly comfortable with that slight difference...

seriously... as tomshen has said.. if you got the dough, get the L. if not, get the sigma.. but having used both,, because of financial limits, I ended up getting the sigma and another lens for the same price of just 1 L ...

of course if I wanted true optical quality, nothing beats the 200mm L in my opinion...

owning the L would be a low priority for me, since I do quite a fair bit of post processing, and I've got other stuff to buy hehee

but for you, it may be an important ingredient to your photography, so hey why not get it

markism · 26th June 2003

Hey guys

Thanks for the heads up. Tomshen, I assume then from your comments that optically, the difference is quite marginal between the two? To be completely honest, I do a fair amound of post-processing myself so a marginal difference is insignificant to me. As much as I could try to justify getting the L over the Sigma, common sense simply tells me that the Sigma is a much more bang for the buck, and to me, as a student, is paramount.

Still, the point of my topic was not whether I should buy Canon of Sigma. My post didn't state i had intention of buying either.

Perhaps I was not being clear about it but i was wondering if there were any websites who had compared the 2.

Appreciate the feedback though, thanks!

Mark.

melly · 26th June 2003

none that I know of... but if you checked through photodo... you would find that the MTU tests for the Canon being 4.1 while the sigma being 3.9... slight difference.. of course, taking these tests with a pinch of salt is advisable...

on the field.. assuming that you're not blowing them up and scrutinizing them at corners and wide open, sigma delivers a similar quality... I can't really tell the difference.. of course purist would then argue that you have to do the whole gamut of tests... like shooting wide open at closest focusing minimum distance.. blah blah.. but generally they're similar, but I do admit that the canon does have an slight edge wide open...

I know this doesn't help much,, but hey,

tomshen · 27th June 2003

The difference between an L and the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 is indeed marginal. However, those small little things may become very much tangible when u want the best quality. I have no problem in using Sigma if not because suddenly a good value 2nd hand Canon 70-200/f2.8L IS surfaced up. So I made a move. At full size, L lens is sharper and better in colors/contrast. But again, for most people including myself, in 80+% time the subjects matter more than the pure technical excellence.

As for those pictures displayed on my site, I can hardly tell which was taken by L or Sigma, if I have done proper post-processing. To another extend, I could make L quality images even with my small A70, if not because the noise level is much higher.

munfai · 27th June 2003

colours from the Sigma seems to be much cooler as compared to the Canon.

however, i'm not too sure whether it's just the lens i was using.

26th June 2003	#1
markism Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 61	Comparison of EF 70-200/2.8L USM and Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM? Hi there, I was just wondering if anyone has done a side-by-side comparison of the picture quality between the EF 70-200/2.8L (IS/non-IS) and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM? I am referring specifically to image quality, and in particular colour rendition and depth-of-field. Thanks in advance!

26th June 2003	#2
tomshen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,719	Why need to compare? The answer is clear: got money get L, short of money get Sigma. Both are good, L is better. __________________ Visit http://www.tomshenstudio.com

27th June 2003	#6
tomshen Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,719	The difference between an L and the Sigma 70-200/f2.8 is indeed marginal. However, those small little things may become very much tangible when u want the best quality. I have no problem in using Sigma if not because suddenly a good value 2nd hand Canon 70-200/f2.8L IS surfaced up. So I made a move. At full size, L lens is sharper and better in colors/contrast. But again, for most people including myself, in 80+% time the subjects matter more than the pure technical excellence. As for those pictures displayed on my site, I can hardly tell which was taken by L or Sigma, if I have done proper post-processing. To another extend, I could make L quality images even with my small A70, if not because the noise level is much higher. __________________ Visit http://www.tomshenstudio.com

26th June 2003	#3
melly Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 236	Both are excellent lenses, of course the canon L having the slight edge... although it is moot on how big that difference is to some people... I'm fairly comfortable with that slight difference... seriously... as tomshen has said.. if you got the dough, get the L. if not, get the sigma.. but having used both,, because of financial limits, I ended up getting the sigma and another lens for the same price of just 1 L ... of course if I wanted true optical quality, nothing beats the 200mm L in my opinion... owning the L would be a low priority for me, since I do quite a fair bit of post processing, and I've got other stuff to buy hehee but for you, it may be an important ingredient to your photography, so hey why not get it

26th June 2003	#4
markism Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 61	Hey guys Thanks for the heads up. Tomshen, I assume then from your comments that optically, the difference is quite marginal between the two? To be completely honest, I do a fair amound of post-processing myself so a marginal difference is insignificant to me. As much as I could try to justify getting the L over the Sigma, common sense simply tells me that the Sigma is a much more bang for the buck, and to me, as a student, is paramount. Still, the point of my topic was not whether I should buy Canon of Sigma. My post didn't state i had intention of buying either. Perhaps I was not being clear about it but i was wondering if there were any websites who had compared the 2. Appreciate the feedback though, thanks! Mark.

27th June 2003	#7
munfai Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,313	colours from the Sigma seems to be much cooler as compared to the Canon. however, i'm not too sure whether it's just the lens i was using.