Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX - Worthwhile?

zerodeluxe

zerodeluxe

Suspended / Banned
Messages
262
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Sorry if this has been asked many times (I did search but not much came up), but is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX lens a worthy contender against the Canon? I'd really like something that length with the fast aperture but the Canon is a bit out of budget. There's one I'm watching on eBay, and wondered if it would be worth a shot??

Ideally I'd like the Canon as I've borrowed one while being second-shooter and loved it (although it was the IS version and VERY heavy!!), but as said, funds are limited as I'm looking to get a wide angle too for some astro-photography!

Thanks!

Ben
 
Which Sigma is it and how much is it? They are not all equal. Dyxum.com has quite a detailed lens review section and most of these third party lanses can be found in there
 
I have the Pentax version and it is a very nice quality lens for the money.
 
Taken with.

 
So, is that particular one on eBay okay then?

I may wait anyway and research a little more. It was only because I spotted it. I'll keep an eye on the price it's going for though still!
 
When I was looking for the 70-200 I seriously considered the sigma lens as it was getting good reviews and a following and was recommended to me. I decided in the end, that it was the Canon version I really wanted, so sacrificed a few other things I was looking at, saved up a bit longer and then bought the Canon version - my thoughts were if I really wanted the Canon version, then there was a good chance if I bought the Sigma lens, I might still be wishing I'd got the Canon version and probably be swapping it at some point...
 
It's a decent enough lens if your budget doesn't stretch to either the sigma or new tamron versions with stabilisation.
 
Thanks all. I didn't go for that particular one in the end, but will give the Sigma (or even Tamrom) some serious consideration, although I suspect many of you are right and I'd have wished I'd bought the Canon...

Some thinking to do!

Thanks again!
 
I use a Sigma 70-200mm at the moment.

I know it's not as sharp as the canon, and sometimes the AF gets all confused in tricky lighting, but it is still a very capable lens.

I paid £400 for mine, it is the Sigma 70-200mm EX HSM Macro II.
 
I also use the sigma 70-200 but it's the OS model, not as sharp as the nikon but is half the price if I'm honest. Still quite sharp and have no complaints as of yet. Yes I'd like the nikon one but can't justify the money ATM. I assume canan would be the same outcome.
 
did have 2 of the "macro" (not true macro, sigma use the term sometimes to denote a closer lower focus distance) versions at one point and they were both excellent for portrait and sports.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 EX II and it's stunning. I could buy the Canon version tomorrow if I wanted but having used both, I can't see the difference, even on full frame. The Tamron is an interesting alternative now though, but if you do look at the Tamron, look at the new VC version as the non VC mk 1 is slow to focus.
 
Cool - well, it's good the Sigma and Tamron are getting favourable comments. As I don't really get much of an income from photography, it's hard to justify spending a lot on it, so if I can get more lenses for my money not buying Canon, and not have much of a noticeable dip in quality, it may be a sensible way to go.
 
Before you buy a Sigma 70-200 (non OS) make sure you get test shots to check focusing is correct. The older models sometimes need calibration.
 
SWMBO has the latest sigma and it is very close in quality to the nikon 70-200VRII that I have, certainly worth serious consideration, especially if you can find one SH.
 
neil_g said:
did have 2 of the "macro" (not true macro, sigma use the term sometimes to denote a closer lower focus distance) versions at one point and they were both excellent for portrait and sports.
Click to expand...
This model does have a tendency for the motor to fail so I'd avoid
 
neil_g said:
funny, ours have been okay for.. err.. 7 years?

never heard of that as an issue before either.
Click to expand...

I had one that failed and that prompted me to do a little research. If you have no problems then that's good
 
I have the HSM ll Macro as well and think it is a brilliant lens both on crop and ff. I've added the 1.4x tele as well and found it hasn't really slowed it down or affected quality.

Stevie
 
Very good lens, I am also a Pentax shooter and the lens worked well on K10D and K20D - swapped for the DA*60-250
 
Stevies said:
I have the HSM ll Macro as well and think it is a brilliant lens both on crop and ff. I've added the 1.4x tele as well and found it hasn't really slowed it down or affected quality.

Stevie
Click to expand...
I have the same pairing on a Nikon D7000 and agree with the sentiments above. Very happy with both the lens and the teleconverter.

Neil
 
Here are some examples with mine taken in the summer.

This was with the 1.4x on a Canon 6D. 1/1000, f/4, ISO320



And again with the 6D minus the tele. 1/200, f2.8, ISO400



Stevie
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top