I bought a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 a good while back and tbh never really been happy with the results I get with it.

My GF is into photography and got this shot with a Canon EOS 400D and a Canon 55-250 IS EF-S lens:


IMG_6199 by _jenward, on Flickr

When I compare this to mine I'm just not happy, can never seem to get really sharp shots with good definition, here one of the better I have taken with it:

Canon EOS 50D with Sigma 70-200 F2.8:


IMG_3586 by Adam Woodford, on Flickr

Im not sure what it is, technique/talent or lack of any stabilisation, or maybe the lens just isn't great...

What do people think?

Toying with the idea of changing it for a Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM lens but at £1600 that's a fair wedge if it doesnt really help...

From the Exif

GF
Exposure   0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture   f/8.0
Focal Length   250 mm
ISO Speed   800
Exposure Bias   -1/3 EV

You
Exposure   0.004 sec (1/250)
Aperture   f/4.5
Focal Length   200 mm
ISO Speed   1600
Exposure Bias   0 EV

To me it looks like your GF shot hers on a day or time when it was much sunnier, and you shot either darker overcast, which resulted in your GF being able to use f8, which from what I have always been told is most lenses "sweet spot". Plus the lighting would help with contrast etc, and she has a better background to contrast against the bird.

As Russell says, compare using a tripod. Ideally same conditions and settings for both?

Do you really want the 70-200 f2.8L? Why not something like the 24-105L F4. It may be a bit slower, but it's cheaper, and on the plus side it eliminates overlap with your bigma?

The times I need to do low-light indoor stuff I use my F2.8 Tamron 17-55, as you never really need more zoom than that indoors, that or my 100mm f2.8 macro if its a gig maybe.


Besides, this is all irrelevant...the main thing to discuss here is...GF?

Besides, this is all irrelevant...the main thing to discuss here is...GF?

Nice to see your getting to crux of the problem there zypder 

If you are looking at a 70 - 200, I have the F4L Canon, and for the price you can pick them up they are an amazing lens, I got mine third hand and it takes some of the crispest shots even when there isn't a lot of light round!

Im tempted to sell off both the Sigma's I run and just get the canon 100-400:

You're welcome to borrow mine if you want to give it a try. I doubt you'd miss the extra 100mm, I'd imagine if you're not close enough at 400mm you won't be at 500mm either, and the extra IQ from the L glass would probably mean less cropping needed etc?

If you are looking at a 70 - 200, I have the F4L Canon, and for the price you can pick them up they are an amazing lens, I got mine third hand and it takes some of the crispest shots even when there isn't a lot of light round!

I was going to say this... I don't own the lens myself but it seems to be generally well regarded - also somewhat cheaper than your 2.8 sigma...

How often do you need to open it up that wide? - would F4 be usable - perhaps see if you can borrow/rent one and compare - at least you'd maybe establish if the lens itself is causing you issues.

100-400L:


Oyster Catchers by Adam Woodford, on Flickr

24-105L:


Robin by Adam Woodford, on Flickr

Looks like the camera works properly.. day was cold and hazy over the water so the shot at 400mm could have been better IMO

I saw that and wondered why it was soo much lighter, that shopping?

Can see the line, does the lens not have peripheral illumination correction?