- Today I'm going to compare the Sigma and Canon
70-200, 2.8 lenses.
(bright music)
Fast zooms, if you're serious about photography
or videography, and you're at the point where
you want to invest some real money,
these kind of become a necessity.
I've been using both of these lenses side-by-side
for the past five or six years, so I feel like
I'm at a point where I can offer some pretty good insight
into their durability, their use, and their quality.
Both lenses retail for roughly $1350, and the biggest
feature difference between them is that the Sigma
has optical image stabilization, whereas the Canon does not.
And that's really important, so remember it,
because I'm going to come back to that in a minute.
I think many people's first impulse, when they hear
of spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars
on a single lens, is that that is way too much money.
But I think it's important to remember that
if you're serious about photography or videography,
that your equipment is really crucial.
It's also really key to remember that your lenses
often outlive your camera, so whereas you might change
your camera body every few years, if you buy a good lens,
it can last virtually an entire lifetime.
So with that in mind, let's talk about the design
and durability of these lenses.
Each lens comes with its own protective case,
the Sigma and the Canon.
For lenses of this size and weight, having a protective
case is a really handy, helpful, and important thing.
These really do help protect your investment a lot.
And each lens also comes with a lens hood.
The Canon lens is Canon's signature white lens.
You've probably seen these on the sidelines
of sporting games and at weddings for many, many years.
This lens is basically all metal, except for the rubber
rings for the zoom and the focus.
Even the switches are metal.
This lens could stop a tank, it's built to last,
it's built like a brick, it's weather resistant.
I have no qualms taking this out in the rain,
I have no issues with it being in
a dusty or wet environment.
This lens can take pretty much whatever you throw at it.
It's extremely strong and extremely durable.
Pretty heavy as a result.
If you ever see pro photographers using
the white Canon lenses, and you really look at them,
especially if they're used for sports or nature
or photojournalism, you'll see that these lenses
tend to get pretty beat up.
They're dented and dinged and scratched and scuffed,
and they still work, these things last a really long time.
So in terms of durability, I would give the Canon
a 10 out of 10, you spend your money on this lens
and it's going to last as long as you need it.
Probably longer.
The Sigma is also all metal, but it has sort of
a soft touch matte feel to it, it's a little bit different.
It's not better or worse, it's just
different than the Canon.
It's still all metal except for the rubber rings.
It does feel slightly more delicate than the Canon.
It definitely feels like it's worth the price,
if you buy it and you get this, you're not going to feel
gypped or like you bought a cheap thing.
It feels very high quality, but I don't know quite
that I would trust it as much in the rain or the snow,
or an extreme environment, as I would the Canon.
I don't know that it would survive as many drops
as the big heavy Canon lens would.
But overall, I've been using this lens since 2012,
and even though I try to take very good care
of my equipment, it's definitely held up very well
for everything that's been thrown at it.
So in terms of durability, the Canon definitely
edges out the Sigma by just a little bit, but
both lenses are really well built, really well made,
and I think you'll definitely feel like
you got your money's worth from them.
Next up, let's talk about what really matters,
and that's image quality.
I took several shots with both lenses
from the same location at 70 millimeters, 100 millimeters,
and 200 millimeters, at apertures F2.8, F5.6, and F8.
Because these are fast lenses, so I think it's important
to see how they perform at F2.8, are they sharp,
are they crisp.
(calm music)
Looking at the results for me, I see a little bit more
clarity and sharpness in the Canon than I do in the Sigma.
But the Sigma is definitely an impressive lens.
So in terms of durability and image quality,
both lenses are fantastic, Canon slightly edges out
Sigma in my opinion, and based on my very scientific tests.
So, if these lenses are priced at the same price point,
why on earth would you not just go for the Canon lens?
Well, the answer to that is this little switch right here.
The Sigma lens, for the same price as the Canon,
comes with optical image stabilization.
The Canon 70-200 F2.8 lens that has image stabilization
costs between $1800 and $2000.
So really, the Sigma isn't a direct competitor
to this lens, it's directly competing with Canon's
more expensive image stabilized offering.
That means, if you're considering buying one
of these lenses, it's important to ask yourself
how important stabilization is for you.
Are you going to be doing mostly still photos,
are you going to be doing videos, are you going
to be doing a combination of both.
Realistically, if you're using a telephoto lens,
you're not going to be shooting it wide,
you're probably going to be zoomed in almost
as far as it can go, if not as far as it can go
most of the time, that's why you bought the telephoto lens.
So I did a few handheld tests at 70, 100,
and 200 millimeters between the two lenses.
The Sigma with optical image stabilization turned on,
and the Canon of course without it,
because it doesn't have it.
(calm music)
So based on these very scientific tests,
I think you can definitely see a difference
in the footage from the Sigma,
it is smoother and more stable.
The Canon shows much more jitters, especially like
micro-jitters that you might not otherwise
realize you're even making.
But truth be told, looking at this footage for me,
I don't really see a night and day difference.
I do think the image stabilization improves the footage,
but it's not, like, the world's biggest difference.
Now realistically, you're never going to shoot video
handheld with these zoomed in to 200 millimeters.
That would just be totally insane.
So any time you're shooting video with these,
they're likely going to be on a tripod,
or at the very least on a monopod to get stability,
regardless of whether or not they have image stabilization.
The stabilizer comes into play if
you're doing still photography.
Because when taking still photos, there's a much higher
chance that you're going to be running handheld,
especially if you're doing sports or events.
So in that case, if still photography is your main thing,
or if you do quite a bit of still photography,
I would say image stabilization is definitely
something that you need.
So really, what does that mean, if both of these lenses
are at the same price point, should you choose
the Canon, or should you choose the Sigma?
You're going to be spending $13 to $1400,
what is the best choice?
For me, I tend to prefer Canon's branded products,
just because I trust them, I know that they last,
and I know Canon stands behind them with warranty
and service, even though the service can
sometimes be a little expensive.
A lot expensive.
The reason I like Canon so much is because I do like
their colors, I do like their features, but also
because I teach and coordinate a high school
digital media program, and I've been using Canon
cameras and lenses for the past six or seven years
with high school students, even when kids try really hard
to take care of them, just throughout the course
of a school year, the abuse and the use that they get
put through is pretty intense, and Canon stands up
in a way that I haven't seen other products manage to do.
If you're going to be doing a lot of still photos,
or you really, really, really want the stabilizer,
the Sigma is a clear, obvious choice.
Sigma lenses are absolutely fantastic.
Sigma is one of the only third-party manufacturers
that I really like, they do such fantastic work
on their lenses, especially the Art series.
If you decide that you want a stabilizer,
you then need to ask yourself, do you want to pay
the $1350 for the Sigma, or do you want to
jump up another $4 or $500 to get the Canon
70-200 millimeter 2.8 lens with stabilization?
That's basically asking yourself, how much is
the Canon name and build quality worth to you,
in comparison to the Sigma.
There is absolutely a difference.
The Canon 70-200 stabilized lens is pretty famous
for its clarity and sharpness and image quality,
the build quality is definitely better than this lens.
It's a Canon original product, but is that really worth
another $4 or $500, only you can decide that,
along with, you know, your wallet and your bank account.
Really what I think that this proves is that
Sigma especially is catching up so fast
with Canon quality, their lenses are outstanding.
They offer a lot, they're offering you something
at this price point that you would have to spend
another $4 or $500 for to get with Canon.
Truthfully, you can't go wrong, and I would recommend,
if you're thinking of buying a more expensive lens,
of trying out a lens rental service.
There's a thousand of them online you can Google.
Where for a relatively low price, you can rent
pretty expensive lenses for like a week or two,
you can play with them, check them out,
compare them against each other, and see
which one is right for you.
I hope that was a helpful comparison between
these two lenses that are relatively pricey
and seem to be pretty matched in features.
Obviously Canon beats out Sigma in durability,
Sigma offers stabilization that Canon doesn't
at this price point.
Please let me know what you think in the comments below,
and if you haven't subscribed, please make sure
to subscribe to this channel so you get
new videos every single week, and let me know
if you have any other questions,
because I'm always happy to help, or at least
admit that I don't know the answer
to the question that you're asking.
Thanks, I'll see you guys next time.
This is the thumbnail, I feel very weird.
I'm recording this for the thumbnail,
should I hold them like this?
Make facial expressions?
Hmmm?