Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II - something

[TordFuglstad]

Any thoughts on that lens? talking about the $800-$900 lens without OS/IS/VR.
Seems like an awesome lens for the price!

 

[chaosrealm93]

its alright.. not as sharp as canon or nikon's offerings and just isnt made as nicely. its an alright bargain for 8-900...

i personally would save up and get the canon/nikon. just me..

 

[Dao]

Based on this article, the Sigma is not as good as the Canon nor the Tamron in terms of optical performance. However, AF speed is on par with the Canon.

 

[TordFuglstad]

hmm, according to Jared Polin this is an awesome lens.. but now I'm getting more unsure.

 

[ultimadrift]

If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.

 

[Derrel]

If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.

That post is what we in the USA call, "damning with faint praise."

Tord, not sure if you shoot Canon or Nikon, but the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED two-ring zoom is available in the $800-$900 range in used condition.

 

[TordFuglstad]

If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.

That post is what we in the USA call, "damning with faint praise."

Tord, not sure if you shoot Canon or Nikon, but the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED two-ring zoom is available in the $800-$900 range in used condition.

I know, but I've heard the 70-200 Sigma offers better optical quality and has way faster AF.

 

[chaosrealm93]

sigma is NOT better than canon or nikon optically.

 

[TordFuglstad]

sigma is NOT better than canon or nikon optically.

That is just a silly comment.. Of course a Sigma lens from 2008 can offer equal or better optical quality than a lens from 1997.
Of course both the Nikon 70-200 VR's are much better, but for the price the sigma 70-200 Hsm II is a bargain!

 

[Dao]

I do not think the Sigma is bad. Especially if you are planing to use it with a crop sensor body because the center performance, according to few review sites, is quite good. With crop sensor body and subject usually closer to the center, the result may not be that bad at all.

 

[TordFuglstad]

I do not think the Sigma is bad. Especially if you are planing to use it with a crop sensor body because the center performance, according to few review sites, is quite good. With crop sensor body and subject usually closer to the center, the result may not be that bad at all.

Awesome! I have a crop sensor and is upgrading to D7000 within the next days.
The d7000 is a crop sensor as well, so i guess the sigma won't be a bad choice then.
I'm on a budget, for now, and it seems like the 70-200 sigma is a good value lens.

 

[chaosrealm93]

That is just a silly comment.. Of course a Sigma lens from 2008 can offer equal or better optical quality than a lens from 1997.
Of course both the Nikon 70-200 VR's are much better, but for the price the sigma 70-200 Hsm II is a bargain!

perhaps, but more often than not, you would be talking about two lens of the same generation and type

 

[Destin]

I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!

 

[chaosrealm93]

well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..

 

[TordFuglstad]

well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..

same price so what's unfair?