RJD wrote:

ShortStuff wrote:Shopping list:
http://www.smifu.com/cameras-camcorders ... -body.html
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/sigma-70200mm-p-10691.html
http://www.einfo.co.nz/shop/sigma-1770m ... -7337.html (after my wallet is back up to full health)

He who sees fault with this selection, speak now or forever hold your peace.

17-70OS is OK but reputed to have focus issues and isnt f2.8 for very long, but apart from that thats a very nice shopping list!

Hmm thanks, it was less certain than the others, I'll have a look around for a more suitable wide-mid zoom lens.

One thing I find with Sigma is the chromatic abberration really kills the sharpness

And the focus really struggles in dusty conditions because of the lack of contrast. Not so bad for me filming, as the final resolution is small enough lens sharpness isn't comparable even with an L series lens, but for photos it would be.

wuffy wrote:One thing I find with Sigma is the chromatic abberration really kills the sharpness

And the focus really struggles in dusty conditions because of the lack of contrast. Not so bad for me filming, as the final resolution is small enough lens sharpness isn't comparable even with an L series lens, but for photos it would be.

Which Sigma lens(es) are you using? I checked out the abberations and sharpness etc. for the 70-200 on the DPReview website and according to their charts it seemed to be damn good compared to the Canon counterpart, especially when you take price into account.
So you're saying that it is good enough for video but the abberations are more noticeable with photo?

Think you have to take each lens on its own merits.

I'd certainly have the 17-70OS over any canon kit lens but not in favour of the 15-85 or 17-55.

ShortStuff wrote:

wuffy wrote:One thing I find with Sigma is the chromatic abberration really kills the sharpness

And the focus really struggles in dusty conditions because of the lack of contrast. Not so bad for me filming, as the final resolution is small enough lens sharpness isn't comparable even with an L series lens, but for photos it would be.

Which Sigma lens(es) are you using? I checked out the abberations and sharpness etc. for the 70-200 on the DPReview website and according to their charts it seemed to be damn good compared to the Canon counterpart, especially when you take price into account.
So you're saying that it is good enough for video but the abberations are more noticeable with photo?

I'm using the 10-20 f4-5.6 and the 24-70 f2.8

The 10-20 is so wide you don't notice any bluryness, but you sure do in the 24-70 when blown up large.

And yes, I wouldn't want to use the 24-70mm if I was a photographer, i'd fork out and get the L series canon equivalent.

That the HSM or non HSM one? HSM is improved opticaly but I'd still pick the canon.

24-70L is a very lovly lens with exceptional bokeh, just not right for me on a cropper.

HSM.

I think we'd all take the L glass if we had the choice

My dilemma is the choice between the 70-200 F/4 L Canon and the 70-200 F/2.8 Sigma, I origonally has my sights set on the Canon, but thought that if I was going for the non IS version, then the extra couple of stops provided by the Sigma would help in low light conditions. I think some more research may be necessary. Apparently the Sigma goes soft at 200mm F/2.8 which kinda destroys the purpose of going for the 2.8.

RJD wrote:24-70L is a very lovly lens with exceptional bokeh, just not right for me on a cropper.

I'm thinking very seriously about the 24-70L as my primary zoom lens. I've just got to work out if it has sufficient zoom for my purposes...

Jono - I am using the 24-105L, sure you lose a stop but the extra range and lighter weight (and lower cost!) makes up for it IMO.

ShortStuff wrote:

wuffy wrote:One thing I find with Sigma is the chromatic abberration really kills the sharpness

And the focus really struggles in dusty conditions because of the lack of contrast. Not so bad for me filming, as the final resolution is small enough lens sharpness isn't comparable even with an L series lens, but for photos it would be.

Which Sigma lens(es) are you using? I checked out the abberations and sharpness etc. for the 70-200 on the DPReview website and according to their charts it seemed to be damn good compared to the Canon counterpart, especially when you take price into account.
So you're saying that it is good enough for video but the abberations are more noticeable with photo?

Hey, I have had a number of Sigma lenses over the last 10-15 years and when they are good, they are really good, but QC seems not to be that hot. I had to send one particular lens back 3 times before I got a good copy.
Canon all the way for me now, especially the L stuff, although my sister has a 60mm macro that is SO sharp.

Jono wrote:

RJD wrote:24-70L is a very lovly lens with exceptional bokeh, just not right for me on a cropper.

I'm thinking very seriously about the 24-70L as my primary zoom lens. I've just got to work out if it has sufficient zoom for my purposes...

I use a 16-35mm 2.8L, 70-200mm 2.8L (non-IS ), and a 85 1.2L.
If I was restricted to using one lens, it would definitely be the 85mm 1.2L - It's a stunner. It's my second one - The first one suffered a sad early mortal wound

ShortStuff wrote:My dilemma is the choice between the 70-200 F/4 L Canon and the 70-200 F/2.8 Sigma, I origonally has my sights set on the Canon, but thought that if I was going for the non IS version, then the extra couple of stops provided by the Sigma would help in low light conditions. I think some more research may be necessary. Apparently the Sigma goes soft at 200mm F/2.8 which kinda destroys the purpose of going for the 2.8.

The f4L is only 1 stop slower than the sigma, neither have IS/OS, neither is weathersealed.

I have a 2003ish 70-200EX hsm and its plenty sharp at 200/2.8 in the unlikley event it focuses... doesnt seem to like my 7D.

RJD wrote:

ShortStuff wrote:My dilemma is the choice between the 70-200 F/4 L Canon and the 70-200 F/2.8 Sigma, I origonally has my sights set on the Canon, but thought that if I was going for the non IS version, then the extra couple of stops provided by the Sigma would help in low light conditions. I think some more research may be necessary. Apparently the Sigma goes soft at 200mm F/2.8 which kinda destroys the purpose of going for the 2.8.

The f4L is only 1 stop slower than the sigma, neither have IS/OS, neither is weathersealed.

I have a 2003ish 70-200EX hsm and its plenty sharp at 200/2.8 in the unlikley event it focuses... doesnt seem to like my 7D.

I find a lot of missed shots when shooting indoor sports with the non-IS 70-200mm 2.8L (I use a 580EX II flash and run it on manual), even on a monopod. Were I to make another such tele-zoom purchase, I'd do the extra paper round to get IS for shooting at the 200 end.
It's a "handy" lens but, in retrospect, I'd rather I'd bought a prime. the IS 300mm F4L is the same price as the non-IS 70-200mm F2.8L and, despite being a slower lens, is probably more useful.
Next lens for me is likely to be a TS-E, but I haven't decided which one (nor managed to get the AFE past the CFO).

I'm likely going to sell my 70-200f2.8 HSM and buy either the OS one or the canon f4L IS one.

Mine works great on most bodies and mostly works on the 7D but it does seem to be a touch inconsistent on focusing on it. Its pin sharp if you use it properly.