Review - Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS vs. Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM

[Peter]

I'm thinking that this incident may be an isolated one rather than the standard definition of how durable the Sigma 70-200/2.8 lens is.

The original post made reference to the difference in the quality of the build
Mount and Build Quality
The Canon's build quality and "presence" is far beyond that of the Sigma.

It is my opinion that over the life of the lens you get what you pay for, by paying for a better quality build in the first place will in the end pay for itself. Its not snobbery but just getting value for your money.

[Peter]

So what you are saying though is that because the lens is manufactured by Canon to a higher durability level it's completely immune to any kind of breakages or wear and tear?
ie. That Canon have never had to repair any of the thousands of 70-200mm f/2.8's.... ever!?!?... since it's introduction to market?
That's quite a reputation to have I reckon

Now you are just being silly.

[Shelley]

When I can afford it - canon all the way for me

.... i will be buying the 70-200 2.8 (canon)

[arthurking83]

Now you are just being silly.

Yes but what almost invariably happens is that: Canon or Nikon build a dud copy of a pro lens, and it breaks down.

The owner just shrugs their shoulders, and thinks to themselves 'hey I just got the one dud copy, and I have a 5 year warranty so there's nothing to worry about'.. but nothing along the lines of what you just re-iterated against Sigmas quality/durability.

it just happens that because you paid less, and it wasn't branded, it came across instantly as cheaper build and quality.. not just a matter of it's the one that slipped through the QC net!

This lens feels as solid as any of the other brands of 70-200/2.8 lenses out there. That yours broke doesn't make it any less durable than any of the other similar lens type from other brands out there.
Simple QC issue that either Sigma missed, or just happened to your version.

Curious now, as to how long ago it happened, what exact model of the lens it was(as there are three of these I think?? .. there's a non macro, a macro and a series II macro... did you purchase it new, and how long did it last before the breakage.

As for perceived durability, unless you know how to pull a lens apart and put it back together again, it really doesn't mean anything! You're probably confusing external appearances and weight for durability anyhow, and I've seen more than enough hocus pocus/smoke and mirrors from apparently well built vehicles, to know better than that.

the Space Shuttle is a supposedly well built and durable vehicle, yeah?? and for all intents and purposes it usually is, as it's built to some of the highest standards of durability considering the environmental elements is has to put up with. But we all remember one day in the late 80's when it all went balls up for them.. over a seemingly insignificant part!

Unless there is data to prove the comments, they are usually meaningless(except to you).

Nikon usually also build some of the most durable lenses you can get.. they're all metal and seem to have that bullet proofness about them, and no one(that owns a Pro quality Nikon lens) will argue about that! But they do have an issue, and it revolves around certain older lens designs which are all made from stronger than plastic metal and feel like they could take on a nuclear bomb if the need ever arises.
Yet one small part almost always invariably breaks on them(the ones that have that particular design). Mine didn't, but many others do.
I also take my lenses to the bush, mainly Sigmas and Tamrons, but I've never had any of my lenses break or fail.
How does that relate to what you experienced? it's completely the opposite perspective!!

According to my perspective then, Tamron and Sigma lenses are utterly durable, because that's the only experience I've ever had.

My comments are made for the purpose of more a balanced assessment

[JM Tran]

what some ppl fail to realise is that Sigma is the biggest 3rd party lens manufacturer in the world for SLRs, their production numbers eclipse that of Canon and other companies

more lenses produced and utilized = more chances of defects and break downs

Canon produces much less lenses per year than Sigma, but they also have their own problems, u just hear about it less, as there are less people using them than Sigma.

Expensive products arent always a fail proof purchase, think back to the release of the 1DmkIII when ppl started reporting AF problems and shutter failing when shooting at 10fps, took Canon a while to acknowledge it and embarrassingly recalled the cameras in for servicing. At 5k for the camera, you would think it has to be perfect right?

my old trusty Sigma 17-70 which served me well for over 2 yrs of travel photography around Asia, it has been rained on in jungles, dropped in water and mud, dropped in snow, dropped on concrete etc. The material lining has been mostly stripped off to reveal the plastic barrel underneath; and it still AF accurately and optics are fine.

on the other hand, give me the protection and comfort of the latest generation L lens any day!

[SpaceJunk]

I'm a big fan of Sigma glass myself, from my own personal experience guys, I have never had a problem with any of my siggies purchased both new and secondhand.................. but I do have an "L" lens that has parts of the dust seals falling out of it, but that lens is about 15 months old now, so you'll understand if I personally don't respond excitedly to quality control 'hypotheticals' that get thrown up from time time usually on a hearsay basis, I'm more about what works well for me and suits my budget, I do enjoy a little of the Canon v Nikon baiting from time to time, but that is more to do with sport than photography ...lol

[Becstarr]

I have to agree with Shelley I am going to wait and save my pennies to get what I really want which is definately canon.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I have no experience with the canon itself but I can safely say that the sigma F2.8 has been wtih me all over the world in all sorts of strange environments, been jolted around and so far, not a single issue.
The only issue I have with it is autofocussing especially in AF drive mode seems slow (though I haven' comparedw the canon because I've never used it).

[benixau]

Having held both a Sony 70-200 and my Sigma 70-200, I can say the sigma feels and looks more professional. As a matter of fact, when I did test them side by side at PMA the only thing the sony had which I wish the sigma had was a focus limiter.

Now I don't pixel peep so i don't know what the differing images would look like but I will say, that as most people rate the Canon, Nikon and Sony 70-200 lenses at about equal, that build quality is a perception that is all subjective.

[Mav]

Anyone wanting to see what is possible using a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM combined with a Canon 1.4X TC attached to a Canon 5DMk2 can see the phot below:

[selaw]

I just got a Sigma 70-200mm EX F2.8 II after a long think. For me, $ is an issue, it was either purchase a single Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS new for about $2500 locally or have 2 Sigma lens for the same cost. The other lens I got is the Sigma 120-400mm OS EX.

I have now received both lens, I just can't be happier in owning both these lens. I think value for money, the Sigma wins hands down. Image quality is up there with the Canon, I have a 1D MKIII and it works just fine.

I am almost in exactly the same situation. I have a 1D MKIII due tomorrow. With no lens yet and minimal dollars left in budget, I am seriously considering the Sigma 2.8 plus a 580EX or second lens to get the ball rolling.

From all the reviews I have read I can't see any real reason why great images can't be produced from third party lenses and employing good technique/composeure and post editing software. I would be inclined however, to pay closer attention to their premium range.

[PaulMac]

I'm not going to read into all your posts however I can tell you that I have owned a number of lenses. Sigma Tamron & Canon and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that when you buy Canon you get what you pay for. My 70-200 f/2.8 focuses twice as quick is IMHO sharper, has better colour quality and is built better.... End of story..... Are Canon lenses perfect... HELL NO but there is no way ( when I'm in the middle of a wedding) that I will carry a Tamron or Sigma with me again especially in low light situations.

Please please if you don't want to spend the extra $$ to get a Canon lens ( which is fine if you don't have it) waste you breath and time trying to justify a lesser quality lens by saying it's just as good unless that's what makes you feel better about buying it. If it serves it's purpose for you and you are happy with your images that's fine. I am a pro photographer.... How stupid would I be to spend an extra 1K on a lens if it wasn't any better??? I don't care less what colour my lens is or what people think of what's in my hands... seriously I don't... The final image is all that counts to me and the Canon lens wins every time with me.