Have you used the Sigma 70-200mm EX DG HSM II for sports?

[Ballistics]

I'm looking into used lenses and I really have my eye on the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 Macro. I want it for sports. Gymnasium environment.

Anyone have any experience?
Also, could you post some example shots?

 

[jahcyber]

I'm only a hobbyist and I've tried shooting a volleyball game under a covered court. I have to crank it up to 800 and above ISO to really freeze the players while in the air. I used an 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 Canon lens. I'd assume a 2.8 Sigma should perform better because of the larger maximum aperture. I hope somebody who's used a Sigma can fill us in with his/her experience. I'm also having a mind to buy a f2.8 Sigma for shooting indoor concerts.

 

[MLeeK]

Are you talking the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM? It's superb for shooting sports. Everything in this album was shot with that lens. PhotoReflect - CLake Sports Photography

If you are talking the non OS version, then stick with the one you have. It's not much if any different. The one you have will handle sports. It's a little slower on the focus, but I shoot with a woman who uses it and does a beautiful job with it.

I have shot football, basketball, volleyball, wrestling and track with that lens. And if you think 800 ISO is rough... I am shooting often at 12800 ISO for most sports to get proper exposure and to stop motion.

For concerts it may not be so hot as you aren't going to get it past security. Of course, chances of getting a DSLR past security are pretty slim and if/when you do the chances of getting caught and having your gear taken are also pretty high. Not something I'd want to do. For concerts buy a good bridge camera for that.

 

[Texas Parrothead]

I have the Macro (non OS) version and i say get it for sure. You will definitely notice a difference compared to your 55-200. There will be a nice difference at 200mm between 5.6 and 2.8. It is very sharp and a decent fast focuser. I used mine for my daughters soccer games and loved it. Of course I was outside but I would not hesitate to get it if I were you. I would also get a good monopod to go with it if you do not already have one. You would not be able to effectively get any use out of the OS if you are shooting sports and using it from a monopod. Good luck and I hope you try it. You will be very pleased.

 

[Ballistics]

Interesting. I need to find this lens locally and try it out.

 

[kylehess10]

I had another version of Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Nikon D90 that I owned in 2010 and here's my shots I got out of it:


2010 Atlanta Braves Photography - a set on Flickr

 

[Ballistics]

I had another version of Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Nikon D90 that I owned in 2010 and here's my shots I got out of it:


2010 Atlanta Braves Photography - a set on Flickr

WOW! So maybe the focusing isn't so slow after all. What version did you have? And these were all shot at 2.8?

 

[kylehess10]

I had another version of Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 for my Nikon D90 that I owned in 2010 and here's my shots I got out of it:


2010 Atlanta Braves Photography - a set on Flickr

WOW! So maybe the focusing isn't so slow after all. What version did you have? And these were all shot at 2.8?

Most were shot at f/2.8...a few at f/4 (you could check the exif data if you're looking to know for a specific image).

I remember it was the cheaper version of it, non-macro. Here's a picture of the same model I had:

http://www.pixtus.com/forum/attachm...-ex-apo-hsm-nikon-mount-sigma-70-200mm-01.jpg

 

[MLeeK]

SLOW focus on the Sigma non OS version is not like mud... It's slower than a HSM, but it's definitely do-able for sports. Will you have some missed focus? Probably, but not more missed than you hit spot on. I shoot with another Mom who shoots football with the non OS version and she loves it. Her images turn out beautifully with it. She wishes she had the newer version, but it's not holding her back either.
-I also have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Now that one focuses SLOW. I have used it for sports and I could feel a pinch with it. For macro, wedding and portrait work? Absolutely beautiful lens for the $.

 

[Ballistics]

Now, the lens I am looking at is labeled Macro, but i see people using it for sports. Why is it labeled that way"?

 

[MTVision]

Now, the lens I am looking at is labeled Macro, but i see people using it for sports. Why is it labeled that way"?

'Macro' is a pointer towards the closer-than-usual minimum focusing distance of just 1m, which compares favorably to the 1.5m more typical of lenses of this class, although it has recently been trumped by the 0.95m of Tamron's SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro.

-dpreview

 

[Destin]

SLOW focus on the Sigma non OS version is not like mud... It's slower than a HSM, but it's definitely do-able for sports. Will you have some missed focus? Probably, but not more missed than you hit spot on. I shoot with another Mom who shoots football with the non OS version and she loves it. Her images turn out beautifully with it. She wishes she had the newer version, but it's not holding her back either.
-I also have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Now that one focuses SLOW. I have used it for sports and I could feel a pinch with it. For macro, wedding and portrait work? Absolutely beautiful lens for the $.

I have the non-OS version. It's still an HSM lens, and focuses like one.

To the OP, I've had the exact lens you're talking about for two years, and I've taken over 50,000 sports photos with it. It's held up well for an $800 lens, that's for sure. Just some minor rub marks and a few chips in the tripod foot. And I've beat the heck out of it.

Let's start with the downsides of it: It's slightly soft at 2.8. Still useable, but you'll wanna keep it at 3.5 or higher when possible. It's also slightly soft from 180-200mm, but you really have to look close to notice it. Definitely not a deal breaker, especially for the price of the lens. Depending on what body you use, you may get some focus hunt in low light. I experienced it on my old D40, but haven't had any issues with my D80.

The positives: It focuses pretty dang fast. Not as fast as my friends Nikkor 70-200 VR, but far closer to it than I'd expect for the price. It's tack sharp beyond f/3.5m and under 180mm. I can honestly say I've never felt that not having the nikon version has held me back one bit.

Here's one shot that I took recently:
160mm, f3.5, 1/1600th, iso 200.

And a crop: (I was using the center focus point, so it fell on his midsection rather than his face. I should have been shooting at f/4 or 4.5 for the greater DOF.

For more examples from this lens, check out the sports galleries on my website (Destin Danser Photography -- Western -- NY -- Portraits -- Sports). All of the football and soccer photos were taken with it, as were about 80% of the motocross photos.