Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM

gingerjon

gingerjon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,628
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
No
It's looking like I'm going to need to get a faster telephoto lens than I currently have (see sig.) The only one I can really afford is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

Does anybody have any experience of using this Sigma lens for sport and any comments etc about its AF speed and clarity of image (and anything else!).

For reference: Here it is at Calumet
 
It's a quite widely debated topic having spent most of the weekend looking at the same question, I can tell you. It's enough to make you go doo-lah! :cuckoo:

From what I can tell, the Sigma is a cracking little lens optically for the money, and isn't a million miles off from the Nikon/Canon equivalents even though it's considerably cheaper.

The main points that seemed to crop up over and over whilst researching were:

Pros

Cheaper
Lighter
Almost identical image quality

Cons

Slightly soft wide open
Also soft at thenarrow end of the zoom compared with manufacturers lenses
Quality control a bit suspect from Sigma
Aperture control sticks in some lenses
Slow and/or inaccurate AF (hunts a fair bit in lower light or high contrast)
Lesser resale value
Not built as well

Now, granted I was basing my research on a Canon counterpart, but it seems that the same issues are true against the Nikon version as well (70-200 VR I think?).

Overall, it appears the Sigma is a great lens for the money, just not quite "there" in terms of out the box quality and reliability every time.

Not sure if it does, but hope that helps?
 
afaik the nikon 70-200 is pretty flawless unless you're using it on full frame with the sigma it's a case of generally you get what you pay for i reckon, just give it a good check when you get it and you should be ok.

or look for a 2nd hand 80-200 from nikon if your budget fits?
 
alexkidd said:
afaik the nikon 70-200 is pretty flawless unless you're using it on full frame with the sigma it's a case of generally you get what you pay for i reckon, just give it a good check when you get it and you should be ok.

or look for a 2nd hand 80-200 from nikon if your budget fits?
Click to expand...

The 80-200 (unless it's an AF-S) won't autofocus on a D40x.

I don't think I'd be wanting to spend £700 on that Sigma, given the poor resale value. My preference would be to sell the D40x and get something like a D80 or D200, plus, as Alex suggests a Nikon 80-200 AF-D f/2.8. Moneywise it would work out about the same, or a bit cheaper than going down the Sigma route, plus you'd have a far better built lens and a better body too....
 
I have a sigma 70-200 for my canon. I dont use it too much but when I do im very happy with the results. it is a little soft at 2.8 but is nice and sharp other than that.
focusing is very fast as well although I dont shoot sports but im sure it will be good enough.

I picked up a non macro version for under £300 on ebay.
 
It's a great lens, actually, right from the get-go; I just threw mine on eYab, though - only because I just picked up an uber-prime Nikkor 300mm f/4 [see my recent forum post elsewhere here..]

I'm not sure that it's decorum/good form to advertise my sales in a non-classified thread, and I don't have enough posts here to start a new sale thread; consequently, I won't point you in the direction of my own lens. Suffice to say that there are a few going on eBay at the moment, and any of which would suit you down to the ground.

The non-macro versions will go for around the £325-350 mark, which is phenomenal value when you consider it's 90% of the Nikon version for 30% of the price... it also holds up well with a teleconverter - the HSM still works well. If you head over to Photozone or DPreview, you'll see some very positive reviews, in keeping with those on here. Another lens to consider within your budget will be the Tamron - although it doesn't have a focus motor, though; Tamron really need to get going with HSM or an equivalent - they lose sales daily to Sigma because of the lack of compatibility with D40's and D60's..
 
I use one on my Canon 30D for motosport & have a very good success rate with it :)
 
I use one for low light sports stuff and It manages in worse light conditions than I expected. Mine is the Canon EX Macro version and I think its well worth the money.
 
I have just bought one from Fleabay for canon its a non dg version in essance a "mark 1" for £275 it is in excellent condition. I have not had chance to use it for motorsport but intend to go to Castle Combe this Saturday for its first outing. so we will test at at F2.8 and see how it performs.

Yes I would have loved a Canon 2.8 but being unemployed at the moment I could not afford a Canon. If you get a good Sigma you wont even miss the white one!!!

Found this link which may help your decision
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144808&highlight=sigma+70-200
 
I also have the Canon mount version of the Sigma, it's a fantastic lens and apart from the IS on the top spec Canon model....it's a worthy equal.

i've got no problems at all with mine :)
 
gingerjon said:
Thanks for all your feedback.

Quite a lot to think about!

:thinking:
Click to expand...

I'd say buy one second hand, see how you get on with it and if you don't like it put it back on the bay and get most if not all of your money back as the origional owner has already taken the massive depreciation hit.
 
I have the older sigma 70 - 210 APO f2.8

Whilst it is a great lens, its not so good for fast moving subjects, the autofocus is a little slow ( i took it to one of the radio controlled races I sometimes go to photograph and it didnt cope too well). Obvioulsy the older one definatly wont autofocus on the d40 so my post here is useless but it the lens is very nice for all sorts of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top