Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II APO EX DG MACRO


TPF Noob!
Feb 6, 2009
Reaction score
Flint, MI
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I'm currently debating on this lens and was wondering if anybody here has any experience with this lens or the comparible Tamron lens? If so could you post some pics you've taken with either of the lenses or tell me the good and bad from your experience?

Any information on these lenses is greatly appreciated.

I just posted a similar response regarding the Tamron variant. The IQ is excellent, but the AF is a bit slower than I would like, in lower light situations, especially. Probably a bit softer at 2.8 than the Canon variants as well. Recently bought a Sigma 24-70 (non-HSM) and the focus motor was faster than the Tamron for sure, so HSM must be pretty nice. Here a a couple of images. Hope it helps:

f4, 1/200

f4. 1/640

f2.8, 1/15 (supported lens on stationary object - makeshot monopod)

Best of luck...
I use the first generation Sigma and love it. I got a good copy, sharp wide open at all focal lengths. It's a great piece of glass, good solid construction, but heavy. The AF is quick and accurate. I use it mainly for portraits. Here are some examples.


100% crop 200mm at f/2.8

Mobster - a point
When you want to compare shots from two different lenses together you have to really do it a certian way.

Firstly webshots are a not a good way to compare lenses, shots are usually around 1/3 of the size they are originally and that will hide up a lot of things such as noise, sharpness problems, lens imperfections and more - its also a lot easier to hide those things on a smaller shot as well. Not saying this is wrong, but that it makes comaring lenses with such shots rather impossible.

Better is to look for 100% crops of shots (That is a crop taken from the fullsized image and then posted to the net - that allows you to be able to see what the quality is like at 100% image size without people having to upload the fullsized image.

In addition its also usefull if the images are taken by the same person - since any errors in shooting will (most likley) be repeated in all their shots - thus you are able to compare like for like images rather than images which might show user error rather than kit failure

Further, unless there are key quality differences between the lenses (ie one performs significantly better than the other) user opinions will be tricky to define which is the better of the two - a trip to a photography shop should be able to help you here - many are willing to get stock in to allow users to try them out and also allow you to take some test shots with the lenses as well (if you take your own camera along you can take the shots home to compare on the computer as well- don't trust your LCD to show you the images. Also, if your testing at a shop try to get some outside shots - indoors lighting is often very poor which can lead to bad images if they are not taken right - outside is generally much brighter and thus easier to get good exposures
From what I've heard, the Sigma 70-200 is good, but not as good as the Nikon 80-200 AF-D F2.8, which can be had for around the same price if you shop carefully.
There has been a lot of discussion here about this lens. Do a search and you will find a lot of info.
From what I've heard, the Sigma 70-200 is good, but not as good as the Nikon 80-200 AF-D F2.8, which can be had for around the same price if you shop carefully.

Great lens, but I don't think he's going to use the AF-D on his Canon least that's what his profile shows.
I have one in the mail at the moment... i'll chime in with my thoughts this weekend.
I just wanted to say Thanks for the feedback thus far. I know they're both a reasonable alternative to the Canon 70-200mm as far as price goes. I have a chance to get either the Sigma or the Tamron for $500 so I was just trying to get as much feedback as possible. Again Thanks everyone.
I went with the Sigma over the Tamron because i've read a lot of complaints about the focus speed and noise of the Tamron, as well as poor low-light focusing, plus the IQ and build quality is supposedly better on the Sigma. I would've loved the Nikon version, but I can't justify the cost since i'm not a pro.
I just picked one up this week, and although its been raining and I haven't had the right conditions to test it properly its night and day over the Nikkor 55-200 kit lens.
I picked mine up this morning. So far there doesn't appear to be any issues. It's big and although I knew it was supposed to be heavy, it's heavier than I thought it'd be. The build quality seems pretty damn good and from just messing around in my apt. focus seems to be working ok and the IQ seems good for the price. I mean, it's not the nikkor, but I don't have a pro budget either.

I'm probably gonna go walk around a little, but I feel a little weird with such a huge lens on the streets...

Great lens, but I don't think he's going to use the AF-D on his Canon least that's what his profile shows.

Oh. In that case, the F4L version might be a good choice if you don't mind the smaller aperture. Its cheaper, smaller, and probably optically better.
no complaints here not great at macro but that's not what i bought it for. and if you can get it for 500 giver that's a lot less then what i payed.

Most reactions

New Topics