opinions on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

R

RAH12

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
Hi All,

can any of you sigma owners give me your insight from using the 70-200 f2.8 lens, and what you all think of it from build quality to image quality. i am about to buy one so any usefull opinions will be much appreciated

Cheers.
Rob.
 
I'm quite interested in this too. Is it comparable to the Canon equivalent in terms of IQ?
 
If you use the search function you'll find 3 squillion threads on this ;)


My copy is sharp, built like a tank & with the price difference to the Canon......

I bought the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 :D
 
Had one - well built piece if glass that was optically great. Trouble was, I had to get it calibrated to my D200 straight from the box so off it went to Sigma UK (under warranty - no charge. It took about four days) to be altered. From then it worked great but I just wasn't 100% confident in it so sold it and got a 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon.

For the money, when they're perfectly calibrated, they're fantastic lenses. So, so solidly made and although mine needed some work, not every lens out of the Sigma factory needs it, despite reports tot he contrary. Best to try the lens on your camera before you buy to make sure :)
 
kmiragaya said:
There's a detailed review in DPReview

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/
Click to expand...

Yes and this bit tells you all you need to know:

The optics are perfectly competent, if not outstanding; indeed the lens is really very good towards the short end, but weaker at 200mm, where it's slightly soft and suffers from relatively high levels of chromatic aberration

That is what you don't get from a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f2.8.
 
Yes and this bit tells you all you need to know:

The optics are perfectly competent, if not outstanding; indeed the lens is really very good towards the short end, but weaker at 200mm, where it's slightly soft and suffers from relatively high levels of chromatic aberration

That is what you don't get from a Canon or Nikon 70-200 f2.8.
Click to expand...

The key word there is relatively. Relative in comparison to the short end of the zoom, which they describe as outstanding. Most lens tests are usually not field relevant, so instead of worrying about it being "slightly soft" compared to the short end of the zoom, just apply a bit of unsharp mask, and bingo you have saved yourself £500. Have a holiday :)
 
I've posted 100% crops from mine at 200mm before, its sharp enough for me. Not as sharp as the new Canon 70-200 II but then again it doesn't cost over £2k. For what you can pick up a decent second hand Sigma for they are a bargain IMO and certainly not a poor lens.
 
ive had the sigma 70-200 and compared to the nikon version i own now, its no comparison.
Its not far off on sharpness, but i found the focus a little slow and struggled to pick moving objects up.
Personally i would save up that extra money and buy a second hand canon/nikon 70-200
 
I have one, and I absolutely love it! I have plans to upgrade to the 70-200 IS II at some point in the future, but not in the next year or 2 really, it does everything I ask of it!
 
If it does everything you ask of it why save up to move to a Canon?

Seems like gear-itis to me...
 
neil_g said:
really? i find it works extremely well for equestrian, motorsport, mountain bikes, wakeboarders...
Click to expand...

yeah, i do alot of lowlight stuff, speedway and other floodlit stuff. it really struggled. May have been a problem with the focus system, but since switching to a nikon model , had no problems.
 
trencheel303 said:
If it does everything you ask of it why save up to move to a Canon?

Seems like gear-itis to me...
Click to expand...

Because the Canon is a better lens, hence why it costs 4 times the price. I don't need IS, but it would be nice every now and again. I don't need it to take a TC, but it would be beneficial when I want a bit of extra length after I upgrade to full-frame. I don't need extra sharpness, but it would be nice if I want to do a large crop.

And I definitely don't need you to be commenting on my buying habits :)

Sorry to the OP for going a little off-topic, to answer your questions more directly, build quality seems excellent (although I've never used an L lens so can't really compare). Image quality is very good too! I thought my copy was soft at first, but it just took a bit of getting used to, the dof can be really quite thin at f/2.8 and focussing errors are easy to make. My only slight cause for concern would be the matt coating which can rub off if you don't store it particularly carefully (I read about it before buying mine), but I haven't had any issues with my one!

Chris
 
Since getting mine back from Sigma for a tweak (and a 6 week holiday to Japan) I've done side-by-side tests with Rovers_Andy's 135L which he kindly lent me for the duration.

I see no difference in sharpness or colour at comparable focal lengths, nor do I see an increase in CA or softness at 200mm.

It is as sharp as the 135L now, and certainly worth the holiday it had! Now, if only I could side-by-side with a Canon 70-200...
 
chris321 said:
And I definitely don't need you to be commenting on my buying habits :)
Click to expand...

Oooh stressy! No need to get your nickers in a twist; and after reading your post it still sounds like gear-itis. If something does everything you need it to, then to crave an upgrade is illogical, surely.

Moving on regarding other replies, I'd be very surprised if the lens is as sharp as a 135L at full size but at usable sizes I doubt the difference would be noticeable between it and a stack of other lenses. Seriously, the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest beasts and I just don't 'buy' the Sigma being as sharp as it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top