Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, any used??!!

nagoshua · Feb 28, 2008

I was gonna get a canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS but my cash won't permit, plus its a lot to spend if it did. I then looked at the 70-200mm f2.8 L (non stabalised) and almost bought one but i have been looking at the sigma version. It would be lovely to have a big white beast on the front of my camera but is it worth it?

Is the sigma a pretty good lens? How big is the difference, how much better with a picture be from the L?

nagoshua · Mar 3, 2008

bump! i need help!!

Big Mike · Mar 3, 2008

I've used the 70-200 F2.8 L IS...but never the Sigma. I've heard it's pretty good...then the Canon is L...and that's a step above.

The way I see it, some of the top off-brand lenses are maybe 90% as good as the top end Canon lenses. For most people, that's probably good enough. For some people, that extra 10% is worth all that extra money. For some people, it's just a status symbol or maybe just the piece of mind knowing that you have the very best.

So if your budget is tight and you aren't counting on image quality to put food on your table...the Sigma is probably good enough.

That said...I'm holding out until I can afford the F2.8 L IS.

250Gimp · Mar 3, 2008

I haven't used either the Canon or the Sigma, but I have heard that the Sigma doesn't focus as quickly as the Canon....could be an issue if you are using it to shoot a lot of sports.

Rent one first to make sure it works for you.

John_Olexa · Mar 3, 2008

I use the Sigma. I have no trouble focusing while covering sports

Garbz · Mar 4, 2008

I agree with John. The sigma is slower, but not being able to focus on sport is just a load of crap probably originating from the camera companies to sell AF-S/USM lenses. I have the Nikon equivalent without AF-S and I haven't had anyone outrun the focusing motor yet.

Sharpness wise the Canon and Sigma look the same at 70mm and the Canon starts getting a bit better at the far end.
These sites have objective performance reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...ex-apo-hsm-dg-lab-test-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...0-200mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

Deadeye008 · Mar 4, 2008

I have had the Canon 70-200 4L for a few months now and just bought a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 to test it out against the Canon. I've only had it for a day but did some tests with my tripod today. It is a nice lens and focuses quickly and silently. If I didn't have the Canon to compare it to I would say it is top notch. However, all the tests that I did showed that the Canon is slightly sharper at the long end of the zoom(I could only notice this when I zoomed in to 1:1 aspect ratio). I also noticed that the Canon USM is slightly faster to focus in low light situations. Like I said before, if I didn't have the Canon to compare it too I would say it is an awesome lens. It just depends on if that extra little sharpness and extra little quickness on the AF is worth the extra money to you. By the way the Canon 70-200 4L is known to be one of the sharpest telephoto zoom lenses built so for the Sigma to be a little less sharp is not a bad thing. I'm still deciding which lens I want to keep...

keith204 · Mar 4, 2008

I have the Sigma and shoot sports & auto racing. For auto racing, I use AI-servo which requires quite a bit out of the AF. No problems focusing with the Sigma here.

notelliot · Mar 4, 2008

Deadeye008 said:
I have had the Canon 70-200 4L for a few months now...

almost everyone forgot about this lens. i shoot nikon, so this may not count as much but, i shoot with a guy that has a 70-200/4 L and loves it. doesnt do a lot of action, but even an iso boost would assist you there. it's also considerably smaller and lighter, but still has the red band on white finish of an L. i think there's an IS version of it as well?

i wish nikon made an f4 constant in that range. NIKON, LISTEN!!

JerryPH · Mar 4, 2008

notelliot said:
i wish nikon made an f4 constant in that range. NIKON, LISTEN!!

Why would they need to? They have the 70-200VR F/2.8. :heart: :thumbup: :drool:

FidelCastrovich · Mar 4, 2008

I know my personal experience is a drop in the sea, but i've had the Sigma for about six month now. Two months of the six it's been in repairs due to a weird focus problem that no one seems to be able to fix.
It's got a front focus at f2.8 and back focus as you start going up the aperture scale.
If it hadn't been for my 22 emails plus 5 phone calls to Sigma-Japan headquarters i'd still be waiting for a solution.
So, my conclusion is that if your photography puts food on the table for you, then go for the best. But if you're only an amateur who can take the chance with a third-party lens - it's a great compromise.

Antithesis · Mar 4, 2008

I'm getting mine in the mail today (used from keh.com), so I can give my first impressions when it gets here.

From my understanding, the newer macro version is soft at f2.8 throughout the focal range, but the older version appears to be just as sharp as it's big-name counterparts. Sigma has become known for it's quality control problems, specifically with their AF motors which tend to be uncalibrated (front or back focusing), or sometimes just don't work.

I would look for the non-macro version, unless you really need close focusing. It's cheaper as well, I got mine for just over $400 and the guy on the phone said it's in good shape.

Antithesis · Mar 4, 2008

It came, and so far it seems pretty nice. Feels like full metal construction, AF is relatively fast (a bit faster than AF-D) and the images appear to be pretty sharp. I'll mess around with it wide-open, I just don't have a tripod ring for it yet, so I might get some shake.

Edit: just did a couple comparisons at different f-stops, the lens is a little softer at f2.8, but at f4 is completely sharp. I'm not sure if f2.8 is unusable, but it's definetely a little soft on a 100% crop. The focusing appears to be completely accurate as well.

notelliot · Mar 4, 2008

JerryPH said:
Why would they need to? They have the 70-200VR F/2.8. :heart: :thumbup:

you're kidding right?

an f4 would be pretty much half the size/weight and cost. i'm all for build quality, but c'mon. carrying that thing around for a day is a *****. :thumbdown:
i don't think i'd ever, EVER buy the 2.8 unless i was commissioned for sports. :lmao:

Garbz · Mar 4, 2008

It's not that bad. Jeesh you make it sound like the 400mm f/2.8 :er:

You can always get the http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_vr_zoom80-400mmf_45-56d/index.htm 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 seeing how it doesn't appear you care too much about your aperture. That one is a professional goldring lens in Nikons lineup.