70-200mm 2.8

Even though Ive had bad experiences with Sigma quality control I still think the lenses are excellent value for money. Annoying sometimes but when you get a good copy faith is restored.
 
I`ve owned both, and for me the nikon version is the best lens ever made, my sigma was excellent at f4 but my nikon is excellent at f2.8, i never felt comfy using the sigma at 2.8 cos pics would be on the soft side, whereas i very rarely come out of f2.8 on the nikon, love it.

as you said if you can get either a brand new sigma or a 2nd hand nikon for £800 i`d go with the nikon anyday although i think they may be up around the £1000 - £1100 mark.
 
Which Sigma did you own, the non OS or the OS version.
 
Soda Farl said:
And yet.....



Lolz at someone obviously trying to defend there expensive purchase.
Click to expand...

Now it all comes clear. You have issues mate. I've no idea why you think everything I post is something you should take personally, but really, take a step back. You're making yourself a bit of a fool. If you can't take someone else's honest posts on a forum, what hope eh? ...
 
I think there must be done variation in sigma lenses...big time.

There are always people arguing softness and others tack sharpness wide open.

I've had a 50-500mm it was soft wide open and at 500mm. Others claim it to be tack sharp - the other day I saw a post that was as good as Nikon pro glass!

I've also had a 120-400mm. Sold it for the same reason above and you guessed it, I thought it was soft where others claim it to be pin sharp.

Tom (TCR4x4) has an incredibly good copy of his 70-200 but it goes against the charts and reviews RE wide open sharpness...

I'd suggest trying the sigma in store and if it's sharp, ask for THAT copy!
 
Last edited:
I bought my Sigma online Phil. Are you trying to defend Sigma, as so many do for no other reason than they have had good copies? If the copies I had were sharp, I'd say so. I'm about as honest as you'll ever hear from. I don't go selling a brand new lens for no reason,like I did with the 70 - 200. Funnily enough, I was 100% honest in the advert too, said I found it soft, but the buyer said they were planning to use it f/4 + - fine by me, he got a good price, I got rid.
 
Phil Young said:
I think there must be done variation in sigma lenses...big time.

I'm sure there is but I for one have never had a bad copy.

I'd suggest trying the sigma in store and if it's sharp, ask for THAT copy!

I've bought all my Sigmas in store after trying them and always ended up with a good'un first try - just lucky, I guess! The one excption was when I tried my 12-24 but the shop couldn't meet their online price instore. I asked if it was possible to ensure that I got the copy I had tested if I ordered it online and, sure enough, it was. Oh, and my 8mm fisheye which came from here - it was described as brand new etc and since the seller lives in Scotland, it wasn't practical to test it! When it turned up, it was as described, still sealed in a plastic bag in its case in its box. AND it is a good copy. (And was about 1/2 the new price.)
Click to expand...
 
Phil Young said:
I think there must be done variation in sigma lenses...big time.

I've also had a 120-400mm. Sold it for the same reason above and you guessed it, I thought it was soft where others claim it to be pin sharp.

Tom (TCR4x4) has an incredibly good copy of his 70-200 but it goes against the charts and reviews RE wide open sharpness...
Click to expand...

My 120-400 I had was also tack shap, infact a little better than my 70-200. Still gutted I sold it.

I don't disbelieve that people have issues, but I call it as I see it, I've had double figures of sigma glass and not one has had a problem. I've never had to send them back or test them, that's how they have come to me.
I'll stick up for sigma for as long as they keep providing me with great glass.

I could argue I've had more problems with Nikon glass than sigma. My 16-35 broke and killed my camera, my 105macro needed micro adjust, my 24-70 needed a tiny bit of micro adjust, my 70-200 wasn't super sharp at amy foval length or aperture, my 70-300 was terrible at 300mm.....

Maybe I should start slating Nikon for having crap optics. :lol:
 
sorry to drag this up again... people saying that the sigma 70-200mm is a fantastic lens are you using the older none os version or the os?
 
Simmy said:
sorry to drag this up again... people saying that the sigma 70-200mm is a fantastic lens are you using the older none os version or the os?
Click to expand...

Pm'd but the old Non OS HSM Macro version, not the newer non OS version II HSM Macro.
 
Simmy said:
sorry to drag this up again... people saying that the sigma 70-200mm is a fantastic lens are you using the older none os version or the os?
Click to expand...

Mine is the HSM II non OS.
 
Mine us the newer OS version, but I have owned the non OS HSM II version as well.
 
I was always happy with the non OS version sharpness wise, and the AF was pretty quick. The OS version AF is quicker, and I've been really lucky to get a very sharp one. I do a fair bit of low light stuff, and the OS is fantastic. Really very happy with the image quality on both, but the OS version just takes it IMO
 
Mine is an older non-OS one but with the D700, I can happily ramp up the ISO to get the shutter speed fast enough to hand hold without the OS.
 
Happy to ramp up the iso on my D700 also, but since having the OS version, I havent had to as much.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Happy to ramp up the iso on my D700 also, but since having the OS version, I havent had to as much.
Click to expand...

TBH, my 70-200 tends to live in the cupboard at home, unless I'm pretty sure I'll need the speed. I carry a Nikon 70-300 VR instead - the VR is excellent and the extra 100mm makes all the difference on FF!
 
Nod said:
TBH, my 70-200 tends to live in the cupboard at home, unless I'm pretty sure I'll need the speed. I carry a Nikon 70-300 VR instead - the VR is excellent and the extra 100mm makes all the difference on FF!
Click to expand...

I loved my 70-300vr but from 200mm - 300mm it was pretty poor. I have the SIGMA 70-200 O.S now and when I need the extra focal length I just use it with a teleconverter. I have the 1.4 and the 2x there is a noticable drop of in performance with the 2x but the 1.4 is great and it makes the lens f/4 all the way through so still faster than the 70-300vr.
 
Soda Farl said:
I loved my 70-300vr but from 200mm - 300mm it was pretty poor. I have the SIGMA 70-200 O.S now and when I need the extra focal length I just use it with a teleconverter. I have the 1.4 and the 2x there is a noticable drop of in performance with the 2x but the 1.4 is great and it makes the lens f/4 all the way through so still faster than the 70-300vr.
Click to expand...

Tommy can you give a bit more light on the OS version and a 2x? I had this in mind for a next buy...Sharpness wide open/AF/vignetting?
 
Phil Young said:
Tommy can you give a bit more light on the OS version and a 2x? I had this in mind for a next buy...Sharpness wide open/AF/vignetting?
Click to expand...

No issues with vignetting Phil, no noticable drop in A.F speed but deff loses sharpness especially at lower shutter speeds. The O.S is still supposed to work okay with the t.c but I am not convinved that it's doing anywere near as good a job.

It's much better at higher shutter speeds. If you don't need the extra reach the 1.4 is surprisingly good. I have only had mine since last week but was really impressed with the difference between it and the 2x. I have my Siggy and the t.c's out on loan to a friend at the moment and he agrees. He seems pretty pleased with the combo compared to his Nikon VR2 and t.c's.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top