i have a canon ellan iie and photograph a lot of sports. i am split between getting a canon 70-200L f/4 or a sigma 70-200 f/2.8. how do they handle? i hear that the canon ring usm is faster than hsm, but is it really noticable? don't they use the same technology? what about image quality? construction?

-- "ed" (ednakayama@yahoo.com), November 14, 2001

Answers

I have the Canon f/4, but I compared both the Canon f/4 and Sigma f/2.8 before I made my decision. The autofocus on the f/4 is faster, but just barely. The image quality on the f/4 is superb, but the Sigma is also quite excellent. Construction on both are very good. In real world performance, I would say they're pretty darn close. Of greater significance is the difference in size and weight, as well as aperture speed. Since I primarily use the f/4 for landscapes the maximum aperture was relatively insignificant but the size and weight were very significant. I think you should primarily consider them in those terms as well. How much light do you need? Is weight a factor? Do you think you'll be wanting to use it with a teleconverter?

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), November 14, 2001.

The Canon 70-200 F4L is a very, very fine lens. There are several threads on this comparison further down the forum, from about 2-3 months back.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

It depends really what sports you cover. If its high school where lighting is horrible, that 2.8 may come in handy. But if not, the 70- 200f/4 canon is an excellent lens, I have yet to see a bad review on this lens.

-- Jake F. (JakeF@nowhere.net), November 15, 2001.

i was wondering if the hsm speed is faster than the non-ring usm?

-- Jeff Nakayama (moonduck22@hotmail.com), November 15, 2001.

Ed

As a former Sigma 70-200/2.8 owner and current Canon 70-200/4 owner my advice is 'it depends'. Because you photograph sports you probably need the faster lens. I'm primarily a wedding shooter who uses flash a lot so the faster lens wasn't necessarily a plus. The Sigma is one big honker of a lens, built like a tank and weighs like one. I got tired of toting it around so I sold it. Also Sigma doesn't have a red plastic 'dot' on the lens barrel to help you align the lens when mounting - I ended up painting one on the barrel(!). I bought the Canon because of the glowing reviews and the lighter weight (and the cost ~$560 after rebate. The lack of a tripod mount (which is extra and expensive) isn't a problem for me.

Image-wise I think the lenses produce similar results.

If you end up with the Sigma and want to sell it later beware, that you're probably going to lose more money on it relative to the Canon at resale.

However I think you're not comparing apples to apples (if you were you would be comparing the Canon 70-200/2.8 to the Sigma) and there I can't help you.

Good luck!

-- Jim Hicks (jhicksphoto@aol.com), December 08, 2001.