Sigma 70-200

justinmoir

justinmoir

Suspended / Banned
Messages
277
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, Some advice required please!

I am looking at getting a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and was wanting some honest reviews!

I will be using mainly for gig photography, so really need the 2.8.

I currently use :-
40D
50mm 1.8
55-250 is
17-85 is

I have used the L series 24-70 and 2.8 70-200 L is, but budget will not stretch to that at the moment!

Any help would be great!

Cheers
Justin
www.justinmoirphotography.co.uk
 
Nice lens and heavy i got the mk1 f2.8 without macro for £350 but the newer one is nearly double. They're nearly as good as the canon/nikon versions and a snip at the price (£1500+)
 
I agree, it is a heavy lens. But for the money it is nearly on par with the Nikon version. Go on treat yourself you will not be disapointed.
 
Graham00 said:
Nice lens and heavy i got the mk1 f2.8 without macro for £350 but the newer one is nearly double. They're nearly as good as the canon/nikon versions and a snip at the price (£1500+)
Click to expand...

double 350 is 700 and kerso had the 2.8L non IS for 895 a few weeks ago so not actually all that disimilar
 
I had the Mk1 HSM macro and it was good, not any more heavier than other f/2.8 lenses and optically it was good. I wasn't ultimately convinced by the focus accuracy but like with all Siggy lenses, you can get a duffer or a real gem; best to try before you buy.

I've now swapped for a Nikon f/2.8 AF-D 80-200mm and it's about the same weight, optically better (well, I think so anyway) and focusses nearly as quickly. It's bomb-proof too and feels less plasticky. The tripod collar is pants though – it's too small. I went for Nikon because I'm a bit of a tart and liked what you get for £600. I know that doesn't help you as a Canon user but I would say that buying Canon could be worth it if there's only £150 or so between Kerso's price and the new Canon (if it's at full RRP). I have used the f/4 version (without IS) and it's brilliant optically, as good as the Nikon I have.
 
I had one and it is heavy, as you would expect. I used it for gigs and it worked quite well. I don't think it was particularly sharp wide open, was my only criticism.
 
When I was in the market for a 70-200 f2.8 I looked at the reviews, spoke to people who had them and.......


Bought the Sigma 70-200 + 24-70 for the price of the Canon :D



Sigma also give a free 3 year warranty for official UK imports on their EX lenses ;)
 
I read a lot of reviews of the Sigma, and the plethora a front-focus issues put me off.

The Canon 2.8L (non-IS) is simply brilliant in every way and not much more from Kerso.
 
ive got a mk1 macro.

first off its not really that heavy. its certainly hand holdable at all day events.. AF is fast and spot on, build quality is tank worthy.

have a rummage through my flickr, the latest windfest bike and wakeboarding pics are all 70-200.
 
Bought the mkII with a Canon mount. Does have minor front focusing issues wide open but on the 50D the micro lens adjustment covers this so couldn't be ar**ed sending it anywhere to have it correctly calibrated.

Got the 1.4 Sigma converter which works well with it
 
I got my Sigma 2.8 about 4 weeks ago, and find it superb. The only thing which would tempt me away would be the Nikon, but at nearly twice the price it needs thinking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top