better wedding tele lens

[cleng]

hi! this is my first time to post here. i'm trying t look for a 70 - 200 range tele for indoor weddings (candids & tight shots) haven't tried being the principal shooter ( i feel i'm not ready yet) i usually back up for a friend of mine. my options are:

1. canon 70 - 200 4L
2. Sigma 70 - 200 2.8

i chose these two because they're the ones within my budget. hope you guys can help me out here.

thanks in advance
cleng

[Bob]

While I love my Canon 70-200 4 I think you might be better served by the brighter Sigma inside a church. The only thing I would want to check out on the Sigma is its weight, it looks to be a big lens but not having held one I can't say for sure.

Bob

[Mr. Pickles]

From looking and testing both, I came to the conclusion that the Canon you mentioned is a tad better at all ranges than the Sigma. To me, that is at the 70mm end, both ends of the aperture range, and at the 200mm end, with both ends of the aperture range.

I have heard that the Sigma will have a tad bit more flare too, but I didn't see a difference, but I was scientific either. Also, the Canon will auto focus faster than the Sigma too, but that is usually the case with the dedicated lenses vs the 3rd parties.

The Canon weighs about 1.5lbs, while the Sigma is near 3lbs. The Sigma is about $200 more too. Of course, the Sigma is a LOT cheaper than teh Canon 2.8 version.

On the plus side, the Sigma will give you the extra stop of light. If bought new from a reputable dealer, the Sigma will come with a tripod collar, where as the Canon will not (they cost a lot too). And the Sigma is black, if you want to be discreet.

There are a TON of people who use and love the Canon f/4 version. It is a great lens for the money, and a very good compromise on price and performance. The Sigma is probably 90-95% as good optically.

Didn't answer your question, but I like my Canon 70-200 f/4 a LOT

[dstegjas]

Cleng,
In my opinion between the two lenses that fit your budget. The Sigma is the lens that will work best for you in the situation you discribed. Working inside you need all the light your lens can gather. There is really no way around this problem when you are in a church, and the f/4 lens will be lacking. If you get the Sigma, you have a lens that will work in all situations indoors and outdoors.

I agree with Mr. Pickle that the Canon is the superior lens optically then the Sigma. It is also lighter and cheaper then the Sigma. That doesn't mean that the Sigma is just an ordinary lens. Many people compare it closely with the Canon "L" lenses.

I used the Sigma 70-200 for almost 2 years before upgrading to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS "L". I also picked up the f/4 version to use when I need a light wieght setup. The Canon f/4 when in its element does not take a backseat to it's big brother or many other lenses for that matter.

Sorry for the rambling*

Jim

[cleng]

thanks for the replies! i'm really making sure if i really making the right decision as to what lens to get coz it's not a joke spending 40,000 pesos for a piece of glass.

thanks again
cleng

[Gbee]

The Canon ƒ4 version is very, very good. It is quite small, light, usable wide open and very fast AF. It comes highly recommended and particularly for the longer term working professional’s tool.

The Sigma, which has its moments, is not for you, or as many of us have done, it will do for the time being until we can trade it in for the real thing.

The real thing is the Canon ƒ2.8 L IS version. The IS is another tool that the photographer can use to his or her advantage and once learnt, it becomes an invaluable assets [IS can actually cause blurry picture so one needs to be sure and careful in its use].

Caveat: if one purchases the ƒ4 version first, then the added weigh and size of the ƒ2.8 version may be prohibitively heavy and lead to unintuitive hesitation in shooting. ƒ2.8 can become a favourite aperture in the right moments and it too can have its own advantages.

So if you want the ƒ2.8 version of the Canon lens but cannot afford it right now, buy the Sigma. If you want to be done with buying for a few years, buy the Canon ƒ4 L.

[MASL]

You may do much better with an 85 f1.8.* It's under your budget, so you might swing a 50 f1.4 as well.* Zoom with your feet.

[alexindiana]

Going with an 85 1.8 is losing a lot of potential range from having a 70-200. You need to keep this in mind. Sometimes, at weddings you can't easily zoom with feet, especially if inside a church or on a gallery..

I had the Sigma 70-200 and loved the lens. Bokeh was really, really nice. Creamy/buttery smooth backgrounds. Lovely for portraits. I didn't find it too heavy at all, though at the same time, it's not light. I suppose I'd say that if you don't know how to hold a long lens, it'll find you out...

Regarding the quality, the photos were always great - sharp, great contrast, colour. It was my favourite lens. I only sold it as I found myself wanting a longer lens for wildlife and "upgraded" to the Canon 100-400 L IS. I didn't have enough money for both. I'm actually going to buy it again soon with some profits from shotting weddings - which I'm now doing more of than I used to...

I should say that I haven't tried the Canon f4 70-200, but I know from personal experience that my Sigma was sharp even when wide open (f2.. That's great when shooting indoors or in poorer light.

Alex