Who owns the Sigma 70-200 2.8?

[Markw]

I have looked into this lens a few times now over a period of time, and read many 'professional' reviews on it, but I would love to hear from someone who actually owns it. I read that there is some CA issues throughout the range, but especially at the long end. I can see this being an issue when shooting black and white objects, but I would use the lens for things more like outdoor sports, zoo and other animal photos, and possibly the occasional portrait. Generally, not much black and white within that range of shooting scenarios. So, if you have the lens, or can attest to it good or bad, I would love to hear about your experiences with it.

Thanks alot.
Mark

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

If you get the newer versions of the lens CA isn't too Big of an issue. I own it and love it. My only issue is the focus hunting is a little slow for fast action sports, but once it locks on it does a pretty good job at tracking subjects.

 

[Markw]

Well thats good to hear with the HSM version being discontinued..with the HSMII not being incredibly more expensive at all. I was debating this with the Nikon 80-200. I have to decide if the extra $250ish is worth it. Ive heard great reviews on both of the lenses.

Id still love to hear more..and maybe even see some photos?
Mark

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

Here are some pics taken with the lens.

heavily cropped...

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

If you get the 80-200 try to get the AF-S so you could use teleconverter if you so wish.

I have a Sigma 2x teleconverter for the 70-200 and you can notice some softness in the image if you're wide open.

 

[Markw]

Well, the lenses I am choosing from are the Sigma 70-200 2.8, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 200-500, and Nikon 80-200 2.8. I cant decide which one I would like to get first. I will be in the position in about a month to get one of them, so I have to decide, I suppose.

I love the second photo by the way
Mark

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

Well, the lenses I am choosing from are the Sigma 70-200 2.8, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 200-500, and Nikon 80-200 2.8. I cant decide which one I would like to get first. I will be in the position in about a month to get one of them, so I have to decide, I suppose.

I love the second photo by the way
Mark

Well right off the bat I would eliminate the 150-500 and 200-500 because of the floating aperture. (if i spent that much money I want the best i can get ) But that's just my feelings on it. Depends on your plans on how to use the lens. Maybe you can try to rent the lenses from lens rentals or someplace to try them all out.

 

[Markw]

My thought precisely. Well, the 200-500 2.8 is $38,000. I dont plan on waiting to get that. haha. The 150-500 does have a floating aperture, and thats what is pushing me more towards the 70-200. The 150-500 has OS, but with 2.8 aperture, you shouldnt need the OS, is the way I figure it anyway. I want something with reach, but I also want a fast zoom. Cant have both, I suppose. And I know that. I just refuse to accept it for some reason. This happened earlier in the year, and I ended up getting the 10-20mm. Then again, and I ended up with the 105mm Macro. I absolutely love both lenses, but the time has come again to choose between the super telezoom and the fast telezoom. Cant have both..hmmm :neutral:

Mark

 

[bhop]

I've got a Sigma 70-200 ... I like it well enough for the price difference between it and the Nikon 70-200. I think I might rather have the Nikon 80-200, but only if it's the AF-S version. Focus speed is pretty important to me.

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

Sorry! I was thinking of a different lens, not the 200-500. (it was late) :/

I would always get the fast lens. The 2.8 is really important to me.

Think of it this way, you will always regret not having that 2.8 aperture, but you will never regret having it.

And if you're doing sports or anything requiring a fast shutter speed, VR/OS/IS is completely useless.

 

[Markw]

I often do regret not having the 2.8 with my 70-300. I also regret only having the 300mm sometimes too, though. Both are useful, length for wildlife, 2.8 for..well...just about everything besides the 200mm length.

Mark

 

[mwcfarms]

I've got a Sigma 70-200 ... I like it well enough for the price difference between it and the Nikon 70-200. I think I might rather have the Nikon 80-200, but only if it's the AF-S version. Focus speed is pretty important to me.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/3361363499/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/4542186979/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/3340955096/

Sorry question about this comment. I have been watching this lens on B&H website and I cant even see an AF-S listed version. Where can you get the AF-S version of this.

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

Sorry question about this comment. I have been watching this lens on B&H website and I cant even see an AF-S listed version. Where can you get the AF-S version of this.

You can find it used online. They don't make the AF-S version anymore. Try craigslist.

 

[mwcfarms]

Bah that sucks. Well I can always watch others craigslist but we dont have an area close to me that has craigslist.

 

[Forest Power Ranger]

What might be a good idea is selling to 70-300 and getting the 70-200 and a 2x teleconverter. So you'll have a 140-400 with a constant 5.6 aperture.