Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM OS vs. Non-OS

[swiftparkour94]

Before reading, there is no "Sigma" forum section so I'm posting this here.

I have seen reviews on both of these, it seems like a great bargain. I am confused though, is there a difference between the older non OS version than the newer one with both OS and HSM? I mean in terms of build quality, glass quality, etc. Anything important like that which distinguishes the 2 will help me tremendously when it comes time for me to make a decision. As a side note, I really wish that they were water resistant

 

[swiftparkour94]

BUMP

 

[swiftparkour94]

BUMMMMMP

 

[KmH]

Does that mean that in the intervening 2 days you've done no additional research on your own?

I did two quick internet lens review searches, that yielded the following information you can use for comparison purposes:

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II review: Digital Photography Review

Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM Review: Digital Photography Review

 

[swiftparkour94]

Does that mean that in the intervening 2 days you've done no additional research on your own?

I did two quick internet lens review searches, that yielded the following information you can use for comparison purposes:

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II review: Digital Photography Review

Sigma 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG OS HSM Review: Digital Photography Review

I haven't had time, moms pregnant and we keep going back and forth to the hospital because were having problems so I don't have much time and needed a direct answer. Thanks though, I'll check out the links later

 

[Ballistics]

I love the OS version.

Here is a set all taken with the Sigma OS

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

 

[swiftparkour94]

I love the OS version.

Here is a set all taken with the Sigma OS

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Ok great, thanks! What camera do you shoot it with?

 

[Ballistics]

D7000

 

[KmH]

I haven't had time, moms pregnant and we keep going back and forth to the hospital because were having problems so I don't have much time and needed a direct answer. Thanks though, I'll check out the links later

It took less than 30 seconds to search for those 2 reviews.

 

[swiftparkour94]

It took less than 30 seconds to search for those 2 reviews.

Well then I'm bad at searching

 

[ghache]

It took less than 30 seconds to search for those 2 reviews.

Well then I'm bad at searching

stfu.

 

[TheFantasticG]

stfu.

Good job on being the arsehole.

 

[MLeeK]

The older is a touch softer and much slower to focus. It is also a macro lens which is the reason for the slow focus. If your main goal with the lens is to shoot sports-the OS is the better option, but the other will work fine. I shoot sports with a girl who uses the older one and she does have a little missed focus because of it, but she produces beautiful shots with it.
Both are soft wide open and are better stopped down even 1/3 stop. I try to stay at f/4 with mine (the OS version), although I'm comfortable at 3.2 and CAN use it at 2.8. I just don't like to if at all possible.

 

[TheLost]

The older is a touch softer and much slower to focus. It is also a macro lens which is the reason for the slow focus. If your main goal with the lens is to shoot sports-the OS is the better option, but the other will work fine. I shoot sports with a girl who uses the older one and she does have a little missed focus because of it, but she produces beautiful shots with it.
Both are soft wide open and are better stopped down even 1/3 stop. I try to stay at f/4 with mine (the OS version), although I'm comfortable at 3.2 and CAN use it at 2.8. I just don't like to if at all possible.

I'm going to have to disagree here.. I owned the HSMII (non-os) and have spent lots of time with the newer OS version... IMHO, they both focus at the same speed. Are you sure she's not using the older-older HSM (not HSMII) version?

I spent a year using the HSMII shooting high school sports and it did a great job.. I kept looking for a reason to upgrade to the OS version (that's why i kept borrowing it) but i never saw any improvement that justified the cost difference. IMHO (sorry MLeek ).. I would recommend the Non-OS for sports over the OS version.

• You don't need Image Stabilization (OS,VR,IS) for sports.
• The 70-200 OS is about the same price as a used Nikon 70-200 vr1, and a used VR1 will blow away the Sigma's in all aspects.

Both are great lenses... and the OS is maybe a bit sharper if you pixel peep... But when you can find a HSMII (non-os) new for $800'ish or used $500'ish its hard to justify $1300 on the OS version.

FYI... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 has always been sharper then the Sigma version but has a slow focus speed. If the new-just-announced Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 bumps up the AF motor speed it could be a great lens!

 

[Ballistics]

The older is a touch softer and much slower to focus. It is also a macro lens which is the reason for the slow focus. If your main goal with the lens is to shoot sports-the OS is the better option, but the other will work fine. I shoot sports with a girl who uses the older one and she does have a little missed focus because of it, but she produces beautiful shots with it.
Both are soft wide open and are better stopped down even 1/3 stop. I try to stay at f/4 with mine (the OS version), although I'm comfortable at 3.2 and CAN use it at 2.8. I just don't like to if at all possible.

I'm going to have to disagree here.. I owned the HSMII (non-os) and have spent lots of time with the newer OS version... IMHO, they both focus at the same speed. Are you sure she's not using the older-older HSM (not HSMII) version?

I spent a year using the HSMII shooting high school sports and it did a great job.. I kept looking for a reason to upgrade to the OS version (that's why i kept borrowing it) but i never saw any improvement that justified the cost difference. IMHO (sorry MLeek ).. I would recommend the Non-OS for sports over the OS version.

• You don't need Image Stabilization (OS,VR,IS) for sports.
• The 70-200 OS is about the same price as a used Nikon 70-200 vr1, and a used VR1 will blow away the Sigma's in all aspects.

Both are great lenses... and the OS is maybe a bit sharper if you pixel peep... But when you can find a HSMII (non-os) new for $800'ish or used $500'ish its hard to justify $1300 on the OS version.

FYI... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 has always been sharper then the Sigma version but has a slow focus speed. If the new-just-announced Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 bumps up the AF motor speed it could be a great lens!

I'm having trouble understanding why you aren't comparing the price of a used OS to the used VRI. I see that comparison often and it's a lopsided comparison. I've seen the OS version for about $900-950.
Also - where have you seen results that say the Tamron has always been sharper? Every hands on review I've seen, Sigma was always the better lens, hence why I bought it.