Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG ex APO HSM Macro.

A

AndyG123

Suspended / Banned
Messages
398
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I've seen one of these lenses for sale for £310 I'm very tempted by it...
Would this lens be suitable for my d3300 crop sensor and would it AF.
Also is this a good price for the lens?
It's a little out of my budget of £250 but don't want to insult the guy offering this if it is in fact a good price...
Anyone with experience on this lens... Is it a good lens?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20181229-222538_Facebook.jpg
    Screenshot_20181229-222538_Facebook.jpg
    49.9 KB · Views: 28
This is the hsm II I think also.
But no signs of OS or VR on the lens if anyone can confirm? Is this a huge deal for this lens?
 
No idea on the hsm2 bit but I have this, paid £330 back in 2013, so £310 might be high but it’s really hard to tell.

I can’t really fault it for the money 70-200 2.8 for £300 or below is a lot of lens for that money, all my sports stuff is taken with this, probably my most used by a long shot.
 
scott199 said:
No idea on the hsm2 bit but I have this, paid £330 back in 2013, so £310 might be high but it’s really hard to tell.

I can’t really fault it for the money 70-200 2.8 for £300 or below is a lot of lens for that money, all my sports stuff is taken with this, probably my most used by a long shot.
Click to expand...
How does it perform without OS?
 
Can’t comment mate as I’ve never had one with OS so no comparison and most of my stuff is at higher shutter speeds.
 
Used to have one of these (Canon version). Mine was OK, a touch soft at f/2.8, 200mm and front-focused a bit, requiring some MFA to be made. Focusing speed was pretty good, it seemed well built and felt good to use if a bit on the weighty side. They are covered with a soft coating which can start to peel off with use/time. Took some nice images with it though over the years that I had it. Overall can be pretty good lenses though some versions are better than others. I traded mine together with a Sigma 300mm f/2.8 against a Canon 100-400 II which is something of a step up in quality and is more portable.

I'd want to see the lens first hand and take some test shots before parting with any cash.

As for IS/VR/OS, it is possible to take great pictures without IS and in fact sometimes IS is a hinderance. However, if you're taking taking shots where IS is likely to be helpful, then having it available is a good idea.
 
I am a hobiest to be honnest so this is me. Just trying to replace my kit lenses gradually and increase the quality of my glass... I do think this will give me that over the 70-300 sigma kit lens...
 
I had a Sigma 70-300mm APO that I used with my EO20D for a few years prior to picking up the Sigma 70-200m. The missus then used it with her EOS 450D until last year when I managed to get a great deal on the new Canon 70-300mm Nano which she now uses instead.

So for sure the Sigma 70-200mm is a significant step up in quality of build and of images with the added advantage of being a faster lens with much quicker focusing. It is also considerably heavier. One thing to ask yourself, is where do you feel your kit lenses are letting you down. In other words what are you trying to improve?

As for the Sigma 70-200mm, there are several versions, with some of them delivering less than excellent images.

This is one I had and was pretty happy with:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

Here picture taken with said lens using a Canon EOS 50D:
IMG_9178-Canoeist by Glenn Wilson, on Flickr

The image you've posted of the lens you're considering looks to have a different tripod collar (or someone has peeled the soft black finish off). So would be interesting to find out something about the history of the lens etc..

Hobbyist or not, if you stump up cash for a lens that in the end delivers poor results, you'll only regret it. Like I said before, I'd need to see it first before I bought it.
 
Last edited:
I'm Generally trying to increase the quality of my glass...
My 18-55 still gets some use for landscape photography, my 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 both get used for portrait work..
My 70-300 never gets used, apart from an occasional moon photo... I'm after something which i can have in my bag with that extra range over the 85mm, but have a higher image quality...
I have expressed my interest in the lens and the guy seems to be willing for the £250...
It is the sigma hsm II f2.8 lens which I think is the same as the one you linked above.
 
It should AF but ideally you'd be able to test it as there can be firmware mismatches. Worst case, Sigma would need to update firmware but that would be another £50 so it would be worth trying to test or verify somehow before splashing out.

I had one of these a few years ago and really liked it but there were a few negatives. It doesn't focus quite as quickly or accurately as the Nikon VR1 version and it's a bit less contrasty too. Lack of VR doesn’t matter most of the time if you use it to capture fast moving action. If it's for low light stuff it could be useful. But these point seem a bit nit picky when you consider the price because there isn't really much if any competition at this price point. It's a great lens at this sort of price, oh and it works quite well with the Sigma 2x TC and does a reasonable impression of a macro lens.
 
Last edited:
My other alternative is ditch the Nikon 18-55 and ditch the sigma 70-300 with no vr and get a tamron 18-200 (with vr)..
But this is still a slow lens... Decisions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top