Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM vs Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports
Every published spec side by side, with today's lowest prices for the market you've chosen.
Key differences
- Aperture blades: 11 on the 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports, against 8 on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM.
- Weight: 1,480 g on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM, against 1,805 g on the 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports.
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM or 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports: which should you buy?
Choose the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM for its weight.
Choose the 70-200mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sports for its aperture blades.
 |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest price today | Not priced in US yet | $1,499 new $689.99 used |
| Optics | ||
| Focal length | 70–200mm | 70–200mm |
| 35mm equivalent | 70–200mm (full frame) | 70–200mm (full frame) |
| Maximum apertureLower f-number lets in more light. A zoom wins only when it is as bright at both ends. | f/2.8 | f/2.8 |
| Minimum aperture | f/32 | f/22 |
| Made for | Full frame | Full frame |
| Elements / groups | 23 / 19 | 24 / 22 |
| Aperture blades | 8 | 11 (best) |
| Closest focus | 1.20 m | 1.20 m |
| Max magnification | 0.21× | 0.21× |
| Focus & handling | ||
| Autofocus | Yes (Ring-type USM) | Yes (HSM) |
| Optical stabilisation | Yes | Yes |
| Weather sealed | Yes | Yes |
| Internal zoom | Yes | Yes |
| Aperture ring | No | No |
| Teleconverter compatible | Yes | Yes |
| Size & weight | ||
| Weight | 1,480 g (best) | 1,805 g |
| Diameter × length | 88.8 × 199 mm | 94.2 × 202.9 mm |
| Filter thread | 77 mm | 82 mm |
Green marks the better figure where “better” is unambiguous. A dash means the maker doesn't publish it or we haven't verified it yet.