Post your Sigma 70-200 Pics!

[sinjans]

You guys should post up which version you have. I had an older "waffle" grip version (I think the first DG, not sure), and it was terrible wide open. Stopped down to F4 though, it gave some seriously sharp images. Shooting newspaper, or anything else for that matter, there was a very obvious soft glow to all the images wide-open, and a crazy lack of contrast. Not that I'm one of those "peepers", I just wanted to test the lens when I first got it, and the rumors were true about its softness.

Does anybody know which versions tend to be the sharpest? I'm just curious. I imagine Sigmas newest rendition is probably the sharper of all, but who knows?

This is kind of what im talking about here. How often are you guys actually shooting at 2.8? most i hear of are pushing to f4. With that said would a 2.8 lens be faster in low light at f4 than a fixed f4 lens? When do you find 2.8 valuable. Im not in dissagreement with those who prefer 2.8. im actually right onboard with my cravings. but I just bought a 17-40L and my budget is not where i need it. I would love to hear your (sigma 2.8 users) opinion. I also dont want to Hijack this nice thread. Maybe i should start my own. cheers:thumbup:

 

[Antithesis]

You guys should post up which version you have. I had an older "waffle" grip version (I think the first DG, not sure), and it was terrible wide open. Stopped down to F4 though, it gave some seriously sharp images. Shooting newspaper, or anything else for that matter, there was a very obvious soft glow to all the images wide-open, and a crazy lack of contrast. Not that I'm one of those "peepers", I just wanted to test the lens when I first got it, and the rumors were true about its softness.

Does anybody know which versions tend to be the sharpest? I'm just curious. I imagine Sigmas newest rendition is probably the sharper of all, but who knows?

This is kind of what im talking about here. How often are you guys actually shooting at 2.8? most i hear of are pushing to f4. With that said would a 2.8 lens be faster in low light at f4 than a fixed f4 lens? When do you find 2.8 valuable. Im not in dissagreement with those who prefer 2.8. im actually right onboard with my cravings. but I just bought a 17-40L and my budget is not where i need it. I would love to hear your (sigma 2.8 users) opinion. I also dont want to Hijack this nice thread. Maybe i should start my own. cheers:thumbup:

F4 is just a measurement of light gathering ability and aperture width. Unless there is some discrepancy between manufacturers and their definition of F4, it should be the exact same all around. Though the depth of field will change based on the size of your sensor.

And of course F2.8 comes in handy when you need that extra stop or want a narrower depth of field. Many lenses tend to get sharper if you stop down a full stop from wide open or more, and will often peak at around F5.6 or F8. But, lenses of very high quality shouldn't need to be stopped down. For example, my old Canon 70-200 F2.8L was tack sharp wide open. Probably one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. Something I can definitely not say about the Sigma, but at F4 and up, it was good enough. Still, no point in carrying the extra weight and expense of a lens you can't use wide open. The Canon 70-200 F4 is supposedly very, very sharp at F4 and is half of the size of its F2.8 counterpart.

 

[sinjans]

I want the 2.8 bad but feel like i would want the IS or regret not getting the IS. this decision is killing me

 

[sinjans]

Anyone have any more love for the Sigma. I would still like to see more.

 

[Antithesis]

I want the 2.8 bad but feel like i would want the IS or regret not getting the IS. this decision is killing me

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but IS doesn't freeze motion like an extra stop of light. IS is super handy if you shoot in very low light, but that extra stop is absolutely necessary if you shoot sports, action, or even people moving about in a wedding reception or something.

 

[Darkhunter139]

This thread makes me want one of these lenses so bad haha

Its on sale from amazon.com right now for $720 with this coupon code SIGMAO9A if anyone is looking to buy one right now.

You can also sign up for this free amazon prime trial (Even if you have done the trial already) http://hardforums.com/showthread.php?t=1482417 and you can get free 2 day shipping.

 

[TJ K]

You guys should post up which version you have. I had an older "waffle" grip version (I think the first DG, not sure), and it was terrible wide open. Stopped down to F4 though, it gave some seriously sharp images. Shooting newspaper, or anything else for that matter, there was a very obvious soft glow to all the images wide-open, and a crazy lack of contrast. Not that I'm one of those "peepers", I just wanted to test the lens when I first got it, and the rumors were true about its softness.

Does anybody know which versions tend to be the sharpest? I'm just curious. I imagine Sigmas newest rendition is probably the sharper of all, but who knows?

I have the newest version of the lens. The HSM II or w.e. it is. Contrast is pretty good i usually just bump it a little in LR to get it perfect.

I find the lens to actually be pretty darn sharp at 2.8 I usually shoot it at 2.8 and if it's really bright out i'll put if on f/4 because why not right? Better iq on any lens.
It performs very well wide open. I'm sure not as amazing as the nikon version but hey it is also 3 times less expensive and performs amazingly.

Also I hear it works better on FX nikon cameras because it doesn't have the vignetting problems of the 70-200 vr1

Hey TJ. How is the lens working out? Having any regrets about the lack of IS? Im asking because i want to go the 70-200 route and am not sure if i want the IS f/4 or the non IS 2.8. Just wondering what you fellas with the experience have to say. cheers

I love the lens really. I don't really regret the lack of IS/VR in the lens. I mean sure it would be nice but I will just bump up the ISO if I need that faster shutter speed or put it on a tripod.

The image quality is great. I was expecting it to be a good lens but having some flaws just because of the non-nikon thing but after having it for a little while now it has done nothing but impress me. It's on my camera majority of the time unless I really need to go wide.
TJ

 

[wgp1987]

would you guys say this is a nicer lens than the canon 70-200 f4L?

 

[Montana]

would you guys say this is a nicer lens than the canon 70-200 f4L?

In what way? Image quality....NO. The 70-200 f/4 is a very sharp lens. But the f/4 cannot do f/2.8, so...?


Another plus to having a f/2.8 lens vs a f/4 lens is autofocus. Many camera bodies incorporate cross type focus points that work with 2.8 or faster lenses.

 

[wgp1987]

would you guys say this is a nicer lens than the canon 70-200 f4L?

In what way? Image quality....NO. The 70-200 f/4 is a very sharp lens. But the f/4 cannot do f/2.8, so...?


Another plus to having a f/2.8 lens vs a f/4 lens is autofocus. Many camera bodies incorporate cross type focus points that work with 2.8 or faster lenses.

We love our canon! lol F4 isnt that bad. The autofocus and the lower f stop is a big factor, it also includes the tripod collar. When i get my income tax i was going to invest in one of these two. Not sure which?

Do you guys think the 200mm f2.8L prime would be a poor comprimise? The best IQ out of the 3 im sure, but not as universal.

 

[Darkhunter139]

I was going to get a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 but I think I am going to save up the money for this. I find I use my 55-200mm af-s vr lens much more then I use my 18-55 that i have now. Will this be a huge improvement over the nikon 55-200mm?

 

[TJ K]

I was going to get a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 but I think I am going to save up the money for this. I find I use my 55-200mm af-s vr lens much more then I use my 18-55 that i have now. Will this be a huge improvement over the nikon 55-200mm?

if you're talking about the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over the 55-200 yes it will be like night and day. Shooting at 2.8 through the entire zoom range is something you will love. The shallow dof and creamy bokeh is great too! Also it has a superior build quality and you can tell it is made very well.
TJ

 

[Darkhunter139]

Ok cool yeah I am going to just save up for that one then.

 

[Darkhunter139]

I got another question for you sigma 70-200mm owners. What made you choose this over the tamron 70-200 f/2.8, I am sure you probably researched both. I heard it was a little better optically but the focus motor basically sucks. Do you find the focus motor on the sigma version to be a real plus?

 

[Fangman]

I find my Sigma 70-200 F2.8 - the older version without image stabilisation an excelent "all purpose" lens to keep on my 40D. At a wedding or the like I carry another camera with the 50mm 1.8 for low light use without flash, but below shows the range showing a close up "cropped about 30% and the background taken from a few feet away uncropped. Saves lugging around a selection of glass

About 9ft away

Mist over snow to Cathedral over 2 miles away.
Yes - I would like big Canon glass - but certainly the Sigma was a best buy for me.

It focuses fast and quietly - sometimes I have to zoom out if going from a focus near infinity to a "soft" subject close up, but in general I can not fault it. I have had both Tameron and sigma lenses n the past for my A1 and prefered sigma then so stuck with the brand.