How good is the Sigma 70-200 f2.8?

wilko

wilko

Suspended / Banned
Messages
949
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I was wondering if anyone had one of these lenses, and any comments, good, or bad about it? i'm looking at either one of these, or the canon equivalent? the only trouble is, the canon equivalent with IS is a lot dearer, and as a newbie to photography, i'm wondering whether to go for the cheaper option? Many thanks in advance.
 
some people say its soft at 200mm.

however im yet to see that ever on my first generation "macro". have a browse through my flickr, a lot of those are from the 70-200 (specifically the extreme sports collection, most of the motorsport etc)
 
very is the answer and unless your a pixel peeper you will probably never notice the difference.
 
Own brand lenses professional lenses are generally built with quality in mind first and foremost and that is reflected in the price.

Third party lenses are more often built to a price point and as such that has some bearing on the quality. Has been said that third party lenses are 66% the price and 90% of the quality.

In some areas thay can even surpass the IQ but get let down by slow AF or cheaper build quality.

That said unless you are printing at huge sizes you are unlikely to notice much, if any difference in overall quality unless you are a pixel peeper.
 
Same here... I've had the 70-200 f2.8 for about two years and love it. I certainly don't have any plans to swap it for the Canon variant.

Si
 
the only difference that would make me sway but not for the price difference between the sigma and the canon is the focus limiter on the canon.
Now that the OS model has been released it will be interesting to see how that compares with the with canon 2.8 IS model.
 
I had the 2nd gen for canon, and on my 20D it was an amazing lens.
would the canon version been better- undoubtedly, however, it would have been double the price, and in white.
I wouldnt dream of using a white bit of kit in my job! (Was in Iraq at the time)
 
Sigma was better than the canon F2.8 IS in my experience.
 
I enjoy using mine with the 2x Sigma converter, auto focus on my 5D,
Jim
 
it would be nice to try a sigma lens, before i buy. may well look further into this!!
 
I am watching with interested as I am contemplating getting the sigma too.

and the 3 year warrenty is very tempting ;)
 
I have the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and I find it excellent.
 
i have one. fabulous. the 50d didnt like it so much but it was a cracker
 
postcardcv said:
I suspect there must be a fair bit of sample variation on these then, I had one for a while and was quite disapointed in it. It was soft wide open and the colours seems muted, I swapped to the Canon f4 version and it is significantly better. If possible try before you buy.
Click to expand...

How do you find the Canon lens at f2.8? Oh you say it doesn't do that?

Your not comparing like for like the Canon 70-200 f4 is widely regarded as being sharper than canon's 70-200 f2.8

Nice generalisation on sigma's 70-200 lens you had one lens that you deemed duff so there must be a fair bit of sample variation?
 
I posted this in another thread but in case you didn't see that one here it is again.

This picture was taken with the Sigma 70-200 at 200mm, f2.8 ISO 100 on my 50D

dad-IMG_9056-copy.jpg


Here is a 100% crop from the same.

dad-crop_IMG_9056-copy.jpg


These were converted from raw with no sharpening. I'm happy with the lens, it could be sharper but its certainly not what I would call soft.
 
wilko said:
it would be nice to try a sigma lens, before i buy. may well look further into this!!
Click to expand...

Whereabouts in Kent are you?

I have one that you are more than welcome to try.
 
snoop69 said:
Whereabouts in Kent are you?

I have one that you are more than welcome to try.
Click to expand...

I'm up in the medway towns. would be nice to try it, and see how good it really is, if that's ok?
 
I have the Mk1, it's as sharp as a tack !
Why pay £1k more when the Sigma does virtually the same quality photo's :shrug:
 
Another one for the sigma, had it about 9 months and it is know my most used lens.
 
a1ex2001 said:
How do you find the Canon lens at f2.8? Oh you say it doesn't do that?

Your not comparing like for like the Canon 70-200 f4 is widely regarded as being sharper than canon's 70-200 f2.8

Nice generalisation on sigma's 70-200 lens you had one lens that you deemed duff so there must be a fair bit of sample variation?
Click to expand...

You're right my 70-200 can't shoot at f2.8, I made the point of stating which Canon I now use to show that it wasn't a direct comparisson. That said the Canon has faster, more acurate AF (particularly obvious in low light), was sharper through out the zoom range at f4, f5.6 and f8 and gave much truer colours. I know that plenty of people will need the f2.8 but I don't and if the OP doesn't then the Canon f4 is definitely worth a look. I wonder if the Sigma is a true f2.8 lens, when I tested it against the Canon f4 the metering suggested that there was less than a stop between them (more like 2/3rds of a stop)?

As for me making a generalisation... If I'd claimed that the Sigma is a crap lens because my copy was crap that would have been a generalisation. I know a few others who have owned this lens some have been happy with it and some have had the same experience as me. Sounds like sample variation to me. If in the future I need a 70-200 f2.8 I will look at the Sigma (I'd need to try before I buy) but I know what I really want...
 
wilko said:
I'm up in the medway towns. would be nice to try it, and see how good it really is, if that's ok?
Click to expand...

If you are in no rush to purchase then you are more than welcome to try mine.

I will be back in Dover from Saturday 20th & you could either pop down to
Dover or I can meet you somewhere in the middle :thumbs:
 
snoop69 said:
If you are in no rush to purchase then you are more than welcome to try mine.

I will be back in Dover from Saturday 20th & you could either pop down to
Dover or I can meet you somewhere in the middle :thumbs:
Click to expand...
sounds like a plan? will pm you, once i'm home from work?
 
Lets be totally honest here guys, there are currently 6 variations of the Sigma and there are massive swings in quality and sharpness, best bet are the early EX APO NON DG NON Macro lenses

the newer Macro ones are generally rubbish compared to the early non macro versions in terms of sharpness and anyone who says different hasnt tried an older version, thats not to say there arent good late model macro versions because there are but theyre few and far between, Sigmas QC has gone belly up in the last few years and too many soft copies are leaving the warehouse,

That said, a sharp Marco version still cant compete with an early 1st or 2nd version
 
I had the siggy 70-200 f2.8 (earlier non macro version), and loved it, a cracking lens, took a sigma 1.4 TC very well, and compared to the canon 70-200 F2.8, a lot easier to lug around as it is lighter and more compact.

The only reason I sold the lens was I'd purchased a canon 200mm F2.8


Love the Imelda May image Bobtog :thumbs:
 
i have exactly the same dilema really am confused about which way to go, i can get a 40% grant which is why i'm pushed towards the canon and i do a lot of work close up and need those baby eyes sparling sharp.
NIK
 
Gary Coyle said:
the newer Macro ones are generally rubbish compared to the early non macro versions in terms of sharpness and anyone who says different hasnt tried an older version
Click to expand...

thats a bit of a massive sweeping statement.. but then i would say that if i havent used an older version maybe.. :thinking:

Sigmas QC has gone belly up in the last few years and too many soft copies are leaving the warehouse
Click to expand...

youve got figures to back up that statement?

That said, a sharp Marco version still cant compete with an early 1st or 2nd version
Click to expand...

with all due respect unless youve tried a large amount of macro versions you cant back that statement up.
 
I have the Sigma and it is a great lens, in general conditions I see no difference between that and the Canon 2.8 IS, the only thing is, shooting weddings I can't handhold at 1/50 exposure, so I needed the IS......just need to get up to 100 posts to offer it away to a loving home on here....best get posting ;)

But if you don't need it for low light stuff, the Sigma will be perfect for you, focus is fast and accurate even in low light ;) so if you are a man of steel like Bob up above then you'll be fine even in low light :p
 
neil_g said:
thats a bit of a massive sweeping statement.. but then i would say that if i havent used an older version maybe.. :thinking:



youve got figures to back up that statement?



with all due respect unless youve tried a large amount of macro versions you cant back that statement up.
Click to expand...

dont need figures, just look at any complaint and i bet its about the newer Macro versions, check out the millions of reviews and the older non Macro version comes out miles better

you seriously wouldnt beleive me if i told you i have tried almost 50 of the Macro lenses, both canon and Nikon and while there have been decent ones the best Marco one isnt as good as the worst non Macro version, again the many review sites back this up also

Look at Fm reviews where all reviews are from real world users, the older non macro has been reviewed by 149 users and comes out with a whopping 9.1 score while the newer macro scores a lowly 7.7 from 38 reviewers

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=37&page=2&sort=7&perpage=24&stype=

Simple fact is if you want to guarantee a good copy get an older non macro, if you only want to risk getting a good one then try a macro one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top