# Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS vs Canon 70-200 f/4 IS L for backpacking



## 00Q (Feb 4, 2012)

I recently acquired the canon 70-200 f/4 IS lens. Fantastic stuff. 

I also have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS, the latest with optical stabilization. Im planning to sell one of these. 

The plan is to go backpacking, for 6 months lets say. Im liking the smaller weight of the f4. With the f2.8, its a bit heavy but its a very nice lens. And I have a x2 teleconverter so I can shoot at f/5.6. With the f4, loosing 2 stops of light means f/8 which can be a bit slow. 

Ive never carried my gear for such a long time as 6 months, Im not sure how often I will need the f/2.8. Its heavy, but I dont want to miss out on the good photos. Anyone has any suggestions which would be preferred? 

Other lenses I will take:

1) Canon 24-70
2) Sigma 8-16
3) Sigma 50 f/1.4 

And this final lens is for telephoto. 

thanks.


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2012)

First, lucky you! (backpacking for 6 months with photo equipment) 

As far as which of the 2 lenses to choose that depends on what you are going to photograph.
I use the 70-200 f/4L IS since 2009 and it is a very nice and very portable lens. 
I cannot speak for the Sigma but I recently bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.

I haven't the chance to use it a lot but I can assure you: It is heavy, very heavy, especially if you will carry it a lot.

For backpacking I would definitely take the lighter f/4

I do not know about the Sigma but your Canon is also weather sealed.

Have a nice time.

P.S I guess that you do not have a canon EF 2X but a 3rd party since you have a SIGMA 70-200.
So maybe in bright light you will be able to focus (but don't take my word, check it yourself)


----------



## 00Q (Feb 4, 2012)

tron said:


> First, lucky you! (backpacking for 6 months with photo equipment)
> 
> As far as which of the 2 lenses to choose that depends on what you are going to photograph.
> I use the 70-200 f/4L IS since 2009 and it is a very nice and very portable lens.
> ...



Thanks tron, 

The sigma is as heavy as the canon version. I just dont know how often I will take my 70-200 when Im out. I imagine I will have the 24-70 on my camera most of the time. And will take the 70-200 as a secondary lens. Im trying to think of situations where I will need it. ( obviously when Im in in the jungle etc). but if Im walking around in a city, then I can only think that I will take out the 70-200 for street portraits. Anyone can suggest situations where the 70-200 is needed? 

If there are lots of sitations where it is needed, I will consider taking the f/2.8. Otherwise I might just carry the f/4 as tron suggested. 

thanks,


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 4, 2012)

I would take the 70-200 f2.8 it doesnt take long to get used to the weight and size


----------



## pwp (Feb 4, 2012)

Either way that's a nice kit. I'd tend towards the less bulky Canon 70-200 f/4is over the Sigma.

But put it all on the scales and see how many kilograms you've added to your overall baggage weight. 
For backpacking that's a very weighty kit. I'd be rationalizing...

Paul Wright


----------



## Tijn (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm buying a 70-200 f/4L IS USM.

Part of that consideration was that if I were to go backpacking, this one might still be able to go along - and that would not be so with the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS one (which was the same price, and also considered).
Another considerations was its weathersealing.

When going backpacking, I'm packing as light as possible, and taking 2kg (4.4lbs) worth of camera gear* (that is with a 70-200 f/4L lens, counting "light"!) is NOT a light decision. Adding another half kilo to that for one more stop of light on the tele range is just too much. I want a decent zoom lens in that range, not the very best and heaviest one. Some friends going backpacking actually end up not taking their camera, because even 1,5kg is a lot to carry for a luxury item.

* This 2kg (4.4lbs) camera kit is relatively minimal and conservative: 760g for the camera (60D), 400g for the light-weight main zoom lens (Tamron 17-50 f/2.8), and 800g for the 70-200 f/4 IS USM. Add a small protective bag or a polarization filter to that and you're well at 2kg.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 4, 2012)

I would take a 40D, 17-55 and 55-250. Cheap cheerfull and LIGHT. The small mps means less in the way of cards etc and the images are very decent


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm in the same boat, but my trips are shorter.

I have the 300mm f/4 because back when I had a point & shoot that could take 28mm-300mm, very few photos were in the 70-200mm range.

Photos in that range would include animals that you can't get too close too, taking multiple slightly overlapping shots zoomed in to make a giant gigapixel image when you post process, and taking macro types of photos. I would test them both in real world conditions (birds, dusk/dawn, flowers with different colors) and see how they perform.

Do you have a tripod? That is a lot of gear for backpacking. I would look into lightweight backpacking... I would have a maximum of 3 lenses. Maybe start with the 50 f/1.4 and see if you really need it. You can always mail stuff back home someplace. Or see if the 50 f/1.4 can take the place of the 24-70mm.


----------



## jm345 (Feb 4, 2012)

From my experience there are three priorities when backpacking - weight, weight and weight.
I would take the Canon 70-200f/4. I do not think you will miss the f/2.8.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 4, 2012)

jm345 said:


> From my experience there are three priorities when backpacking - weight, weight and weight.
> I would take the Canon 70-200f/4. I do not think you will miss the f/2.8.



The thing about the 70-200 f4 is that it is damn sharp. Amazing. Shame the focusing is a bit slower than the f2.8 version.


----------



## Freeze_XJ (Feb 5, 2012)

As Tijn already said, weight can be an extremely limiting factor, but I think the main thing you will have to decide is reach. The 2.8 can take a 2x TC, making it somewhat suited for wildlife (and especially if you're on a budget), and while the f/4 is as sharp as they come, it doesn't give you more than 300 mm reach. If you only go city-hopping or are not interested in making animal pics, I'd personally go with the f/4, but if you think you need the reach the 2.8 might well be worth the weight. If you take a large pack and don't have to lug your own tent, sleeping bag and cooking gear with you, opting for the heavy stuff is also easier. 

(I personally take a 200L 2.8 and 17-70 for weight reasons, and with a TC I have it all covered, I rarely need the focal lenghts inbetween, and can thus save there. Primes are light  )


----------

