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

[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.

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.

I also own the Tamron. I am not sure I'd say it's sharper, butI do believe I have seen reviews to that effect somewhere along the line and I am guessing that it's compared to the HSM I Sigma lens. Something in the back of my brain is telling me that the reviews to that effect are why I chose the tamron in the first place. I was not shooting sports at the time and my primary use was to be for weddings. I now only really use it for Macros or for a second shooter, but I will say that the images I have from sports when I did use it are SHARP and beautiful. I did have more missed focus, but not to the point that it was ready to become a paper weight or anything like that. I used it for a few years for sports before upgrading.
Part of my reason for upgrading was the OS. For weddings that is one handy thing to have!

I can feel the difference between Lori's lens and mine and so can she in the focusing. She also feels mine is the sharper of the two, but maybe that is envy. I think hers does a gorgeous job. She recently spent a day with me shooting because of the missed focus problems with hers and learning how to compensate for the slow focus problems on hers. I am almost positive it's the HSM II version, but I will double check. She ordered it JUST before Sigma retired the second version. I could be wrong and she could also be confused in that there were two versions. She was fairly new to the action side of this when she ordered and could have easily gotten the first one and not known. I had helped her and sent her the link for the HSM II version because I knew she was going to try sports with it, so I am fairly confident.

I'll also ask her if I can post a few of her shots here from it for some comparison. She's got some gorgeous, crisp, clean shots with it and if I had to use it I definitely wouldn't hesitate for any reason-focus included.

 

[TheLost]

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.

I'm just going off my own experience... 1) Most people are asking about buying a NEW sigma OS. 2) I never see any Sigma 70-200 OS's for sale in my area so i cant comment on prices (There are two Sigma HSMII's for sale in my city right now for $500).

If you can get a used OS for $900 i would totally get that over a new one.. I just looked and both B&H and Amazon have raised the price of the OS to $1400! (ouch!).

All of the reviews & comparisons i've read/seen say the Tamron is sharper but its poor auto focus makes the recommend go to Sigma. In my personal experience i've found the same. The Tamron i rented was sharper at f/2.8 then any Sigma I've used.

 

[TheLost]

I'll also ask her if I can post a few of her shots here from it for some comparison. She's got some gorgeous, crisp, clean shots with it and if I had to use it I definitely wouldn't hesitate for any reason-focus included.

Could it possibly be her camera body? I used two different copies of the OS to compare with my HSMII... they all preformed the same (AF wise). The OS version has a much better build quality and finish to it then the older one.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a HUGE fan of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8's. My point is (IMHO) for $1400 there is a better choice.

 

[swiftparkour94]

stfu.

Excuse me, but have I done anything that's upset you? No. Bye

 

[swiftparkour94]

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.

Alright excellent, thank you

 

[MLeeK]

I'll also ask her if I can post a few of her shots here from it for some comparison. She's got some gorgeous, crisp, clean shots with it and if I had to use it I definitely wouldn't hesitate for any reason-focus included.

Could it possibly be her camera body? I used two different copies of the OS to compare with my HSMII... they all preformed the same (AF wise). The OS version has a much better build quality and finish to it then the older one.

Don't get me wrong... I'm a HUGE fan of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8's. My point is (IMHO) for $1400 there is a better choice.

She's shooting with the same body I am, so not on this one.
Although, I do think you are right. If you can go with a VR1 from Nikon for the same price? That's how I would go too. Wasn't an option for me when I bought mine.

 

[Ballistics]

Let's just say I've never ran into a situation where I said "Oh if I only had the VRI, this shot would look so much better". The Sigma OS rocks. It's fast, it's sharp, and the OS is works well.

 

[TheLost]

Let's just say I've never ran into a situation where I said "Oh if I only had the VRI, this shot would look so much better". The Sigma OS rocks. It's fast, it's sharp, and the OS is works well.

I used to think that too until i got the Nikon ... The Nikon has better color, contrast and build quality. Not to mention its tack sharp @ f/2.8. I loved my sigma and spent lots of time with both versions... but the Nikon is in a different league.