Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 macro

[Ejazzle]

I have searched all over the interwebz and cant seem to find the macro ratio of this lens. Does anyone know what it is? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

[Kegger]

It's not a true Macro lens. Sigma branded it that way because of the relatively close focus distance.

 

[Phranquey]

I believe it is 1:3.5

 

[JustAnEngineer]

I have searched all over the interwebz and cant seem to find the macro ratio of this lens. Does anyone know what it is? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3

Minimum focusing distance of 100cm, maximum magnification of 1:3.5.

P.S.: My folks live in Jupiter, too.

 

[Ejazzle]

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3


P.S.: My folks live in Jupiter, too.

hah thats the only website i couldnt read last night, the font was too small. And i mkimmed right over the top part

Thanks for all the help everyone!

i <3 jupiter...

 

[Ejazzle]

is the Nikon 80-200 better than the sigma 70-200?

 

[JustAnEngineer]

the font was too small...

Hold down your Ctrl key and roll your mouse wheel up. All of your fonts should get bigger.

 

[JerryPH]

is the Nikon 80-200 better than the sigma 70-200?

Under F/8, it is hard to tell, but the wider the aperture, the bigger the differences. By F/2.8, the Sigma is VERY soft, whereas the Nikkor is a bit softer but still WAY sharper than the Sigma.

 

[Ejazzle]

so does the 70-200vr put both the 80-200 and the sigma to shame?

 

[dEARlEADER]

Under F/8, it is hard to tell, but the wider the aperture, the bigger the differences. By F/2.8, the Sigma is VERY soft, whereas the Nikkor is a bit softer but still WAY sharper than the Sigma.

in addition to what Jerry said, the sigma will also be softer with the lens extended at 200mm

 

[dEARlEADER]

so does the 70-200vr put both the 80-200 and the sigma to shame?

mostly what put one lens "to shame" against another is the photographer

you can work with all three of these lenses, you just have to work around their weaknesses....

so buy what you can afford...

 

[Phranquey]

so does the 70-200vr put both the 80-200 and the sigma to shame?

The Sigma....yes, especially at F/2.8 to 5.6, as Jerry stated.

The Nikon....yes, but by a much smaller margin. I had an 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D before moving up to the VR, and it was a VERY good lens for less than half the price.

 

[Ejazzle]

yeah so i have read a bunch of reviews and especially the reviews on FM.com scared me away from the sigma lol. So many horror stories.

So the 80-200 it is! Have there been different versions over the years?

 

[Phranquey]

yeah so i have read a bunch of reviews and especially the reviews on FM.com scared me away from the sigma lol. So many horror stories.

So the 80-200 it is! Have there been different versions over the years?

Here is a review of the 70-200mm VR by Thom Hogan, but at the top of the article, he lists most of the medium zoom 2.8 renditions. I had the second one from the bottom, the 80-200 AF-D two ring version, which was an extremely capable lens. These can be found for pretty good prices in good condition.
My view of the lens....While the autofocus wasn't quite as fast as the AF-S version, the average shooter isn't really going to notice. It is a bit of a "torquey" lens, meaning if it is on a lightweight camera body, you are going to feel a little bit of a counter-twist through the camera as it is focusing, but it's not like grabbing a power drill. After a while, you won't even notice. As far as a few reviews go, the AF-D is nearly equal in quality to the 70-200mm. IMO, it is a great lens for moving up to a 2.8.

http://www.bythom.com/70200vrlens.htm



EDIT: I went and did a little digging, and this picture was taken with the 80-200 AF-D:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118387

 

[Ejazzle]

thanks a bunch!
So is the af-d better than the af-s ? or is the only difference the focus that i probably wont notice?

the picture of the owl is awesome!