Anybody use a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM lens

DJW

DJW

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,040
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a decent low light level zoom around the 70-200mm range. Ideally I would like to use inside without flash. Now I would love the f/2.8 Nikon VR version but the price is a bit :shock:

For about half the dosh (£619) I can see the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM . Anybody got one ? Can you share your thoughts please. I'm especially interested to know how heavy this lens is in the real world....eg out taking shots.

Any other lenses I should consider ?

Also I've forgotten the site where you can see comparisons between lenses...can anybody remind me please :Ponders:
 
Can't help you with the weight.

The Canon 70-200 F4 is pretty light. It's more the size that makes it a bit more awkward than std lenses. I know you are Nikon but the idea is the same.

I have used the F4 indoors with no flash quite successfully in the past - hand held and in tungsten lighting.

FM has reviews but you probably know that.

Another bookmark I have with lens reviews - not sure how good it may be.

My bookmarks are mainly Canon only :whistling
 
I believe kerso (where I got my 100-400) does Sigma as well as Canon. Can give you email addy if you need it.
 
I recently purchased the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG HSM.

Not really had a chance to use it as yet but just shooting around my home I can tell you it is fast and sharp.

As for the weight I have it on a D2Hs body.........It is heavy but I do manage to walk around ok with it........if I happened to ask the missis to hold it then she wouldn't be able to for to long.
 
Thanks for replies & to Steep for great price (should have checked there as I bought the 50mm there :nut: ).

Got even more confused when I started chucking a S/H Nikon 80-200 ED f2.8 D AF zoom lens into the equation. One went for £360 yesterday on EBAY here.

Not sure which would be a better lens for the dosh now :Ponders:
 
70-200mm Indoors? How big is your house, man?

Comparing an f/2.8 to an f/4 is a bit pointless. The f/2.8 will always be a fair bit heavier. The 16-35mm f/2.8L I rented the other weekend was pretty chunky. However I think the 17-40mm f/4L is pretty light, isn't it?
 
fingerz said:
70-200mm Indoors? How big is your house, man?
Click to expand...

:lol: Was actually thinking about being able to get tight crops at wedding receptions etc without being noticed (eg. natural poses). Ref f/4, both the Sigma & Nikon lens are f/2.8.....but you are right about the weight...might be an issue
 
I used to cover weddings almost exclusively with a 28-80mm zoom which was great for most of the shots. For larger groups and interior shots I used a 24mm prime and never felt the need for anything longer or wider. :)

Edit ... that was using film.
 
I don't take the normal shots though ;) I really like the tight crops of faces etc.

For anyone who is interested I got some detailed replies on the same query on FM here . Result is Sigma is best deal for those who cannot view link.
 
I've got the Sigma 70-200 and it's excellent. It's about 1.2kg off the top of my head so with the camera attached it's not light but I can still use it handheld all day and not really get tired.

I would have liked the Nikkor 70-200 but i just couldn't justify the extra £££
 
Cheers. Jessops haven't got it in stock at the moment, but are getting one in for me. Will have a play & see if I like it.
 
Why not mail them and ask? If you don't ask, you don't get....
 
Maybe all the lens manufacturers got together and said "now look here, chaps. The problem with us all making a ruddy good all-purpose lens is that people will buy it and then not buy any other lenses. Why sell someone an 18-200mm F2.8 when you can sell them two different lenses to cover that range, maximising profits, what what?"

"I say, that fellow's talking some real sense. We'll make millions."

"Fantastic show. So we're all agreed? No all-purpose lenses."

And here endeth the story.

What we need is some young upstart lens manufacturer to stick two fingers up at the system and cut themselves into the profit pie with just such a lens.
 
OK, tried this baby out today in Jessops. Example shot below. Pure crop from original shot shown after. EXIF: - 200mm, 1/50 sec @ f/2.8, ISO200 handheld with no flash.

Sigma70-200exampleshot.jpg


Sigma70-200exampleshotfull.jpg


Have to say from the little play, the sharpness of the Lens PQ is very impressive...but & a BIG BUT.... how damn big & heavy the lens is !!! . I tried to imagine it beforehand from all the reviews, but not until you see it in the flesh :D . Beautiful lens, but main reason I wanted this lens was so I could :-
a) shoot candid tight portraits from a distance indoors
b) stay as inconspicous as possible to catch natural shots rather than posed

on these counts I felt this lens wasn't right for me for the follwing reasons :-
a) 200mm is not enough.....in the shop I took a shot of a bloke window shopping around 20 feet away & I had from top of head down to mid waist in landscape mode.
b) I felt like the paps with this lens on ;) & instantly drew attention from most people in the shop when I started shooting with it....obviously lens envy.

So for me I think the idea of a bright zoom for indoors is a no no. Think I will have to learn to be more discrete with an 85mm prime & get closer. I think some of the compacts with flip out screens have an advantage here, as you can hold camera down nearer your chest & look at tilted screen to get shots......nobody would know you are taking the shots that way .....I've used this method with the old video camera.

Ah well £460 saved......now what next ;)
 
First time out and about with the white(ish) 70-200 on my camera I felt conspicuous and was wondering who was looking at me. Second time I did not notice so much.

Now I wave the camera about with the 100-400 drainpipe attached and don't give it a second thought :)
 
RobertP said:
Now I wave the camera about with the 100-400 drainpipe attached and don't give it a second thought :)
Click to expand...

:lol: . I've never understood the "white" thing with the Canon L lenses. One of the reasons for selling my 300D was I was going to buy a "L" lens based on reviews, but I didn't see the colour until last minute :icon_eek: . You definetely need some :icon_cool with that baby ;) . Thought I would be safer with Nikon lenses.....must be getting shy in my old age. Just realised none of this makes sense, as I have just looked at Sigma :nut:
 
I have this lens in canon fit and find it superb very sharp and fast. I have used the sigma 50-500mm at a wedding for the same reason as you but out side and worked very well. I got right out the way and had the zoom to get in close with out them knowing..
 
tommy6206 said:
I have this lens in canon fit and find it superb very sharp and fast. I have used the sigma 50-500mm at a wedding for the same reason as you but out side and worked very well. I got right out the way and had the zoom to get in close with out them knowing..
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
ANy example shots with the 50-500 ? What focal length did you manage to hand hold up to & what ISO ?
 
ISO 100 and I use a bean bag "The pod" from jessops and anything from 50 to 500mm.

I have none of the wedding posted online but plenty of others
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top