I need YOU to identify this sigma lens!!! HELP

[deggimatt]

A friend wants to sell me his sigma 70-200mm 2.8, he sent me this photo. What is the exact model of this lens?
Thanks guys.

 

[o hey tyler]

It's a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. Can't tell much more about it, but I am assuming it doesn't have OS.

Also, we don't know what type of mount it has on it.

 

[deggimatt]

It is supposed to be a canon mount. Is this the older model of the 70-200mm 2.8? Does it produce the same image quality of the newest models?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

This appears to be the 1st release of the 70-200 f2.8 from 1999.

 

[deggimatt]

Is it any good?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I have no idea. If you go to say dpeviews.com they give you the skinny on the iterations of this lens starting with the latest version with notes going back in time to what they improved on. All others versions previous have been discontinued, I believe. Also go to the Sigma site and look at what all their nomenclature means for their lenses...I'm not entirely sure ( do not want to mis-speak) so someone might be able to add to this...the version you are looking at might not have been desgined for digital, although even some of the old Canon 70-210's do work on a Canon DSLR too.

 

[DiskoJoe]

i have a sigma 70-210 f2.8 that I use on my sony. looks like This

It will work on newer cameras but the AF systems are a little strong for it. Same issue with the later series 70-200 like this

Glass is good on either but the AF tends to be worn on on the old copies. The newer versions have better motors and thus why they cost more but glass is not really any nicer.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Is it any good?

Judge for yourself....

Kayla/Buster - 100 strangers: 08/100 by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

ooh by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

Personally I like it. The 9 blade rounded aperture makes very smooth bokeh.

 

[jake337]

You said it was a friend who wants to sell it to you, right? You should ask them exactly what lens they have and the serial number. You could also check out the pictures they have taken with it as well.

 

[deggimatt]

He told me its the APO version. But in the internet I am not able to find any information about this lens. I taught he made a mistake in the name.

 

[DiskoJoe]

He told me its the APO version. But in the internet I am not able to find any information about this lens. I taught he made a mistake in the name.

The versions I was speaking about are both apo.

 

[deggimatt]

thanks for the samples joe. do you think 450 dollars are a good deal for the lens?

 

[GeorgieGirl]

You can get a Canon 70-210 f4 for under $100.00 in better looking shape than this one.

 

[lonewolfsx]

That's a pretty good deal on that lens. I used the slightly newer EX APO "Macro" version (but not OS version) extensively for football and some other sports and I thought it was fantastic. It's a solid lens all around. It won't be as sharp as say the canon/nikon 70-200 2.8's, but it's pretty awesome and much more reasonably priced.

Personally I'd pick it up, or it should be pretty easy to sell if that's your intention. They're decently popular on ebay and command a decent price. The version in the picture is the older non-macro version, but the macro version's magnification is something like 5.3:1 which isn't really macro anyway. This lens may be a little harder to use for some portraits since it doesn't focus super close, but still should be very useful, and still great for its intended uses (sports).

Still have him send you a few pictures of the front and rear elements, it doesn't look particularly well cared for, maybe not abused but definitely stored in a dusty place or otherwise unused. You may want to check that it focuses properly on your camera body, wide aperture sigma lenses like this sometimes have noticeable front/back focusing issues which might be the deal killer here. Spec wise though, it's a solid win.

 

[rexbobcat]

You can get a Canon 70-210 f4 for under $100.00 in better looking shape than this one.

I'm not sure that's really a comparable lens.....