Sigma...

bhoskins · Jun 25, 2008

Hi all,

Been looking for a longer lens for my Canon EOS 40D, preferably for taking sports photography with.

Look at most of the options from Canon but most of the faster lenses seem very expensive and a bit out of my price range

I have been looking for a bit at the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II lens and it seems like, from certain reviews that i have read that it is a very good lens, but i was really wondering if anyone has any first hand experience of this lens or knows anything about it or if there are any alternatives for a similar price.

Thanks !

Rhys · Jun 25, 2008

For sport IS is apparently not that important. Fast ISO, fast shutter and fast lenses are all that's important. I would have thought a 70-200 would have been a little underpowered.

bhoskins · Jun 25, 2008

Rhys said:
For sport IS is apparently not that important. Fast ISO, fast shutter and fast lenses are all that's important. I would have thought a 70-200 would have been a little underpowered.

Ive seen 70-200's used at sporting events before, why do you think it would be underpowered?

Big Mike · Jun 25, 2008

That is a great lens for the price.

That being said, shooting sports usually isn't for those with shallow pockets. A typical 'Pro' sports shooter probably has at least $10,000 worth of gear to get those great shots that you see in the magazines.

The Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 is a good option for a lower price. The large aperture is a necessity for shooting sports, especially in lower light (which might include night shooting with stadium lighting).

Overread · Jun 25, 2008

Well IS won't stop any motion blur from the subject, but it will stop blur from your hands - most sports photographers use tripods or monopods when they can to help keep the camera steady.
As for 70-200mm its a decent range for sports and the f2.8 lets you shoot fast to capture action and not blur, without having to upp ISO to high levels (and thus making shots noisy).
The sigma (from what I have read) is a very good lens - its not going to ever beat the top end canon 70-200mm, but it is a good contender

Longer focal lengths will generally (for this price range) be slower lenses especially some of the super zooms, which means you will get more blur from the movement.

tim.bennett · Jun 25, 2008

On a 1.6 crop factor body like the 40d the 70-200 would be fine for a lot of sports. Cricket for one it's way short.

bhoskins · Jun 25, 2008

Yea i have tried shooting cricket before with a shorter lens and the results didn't come out too well! I have read that this lens performs well using teleconverters, which i have considered for taking pictures of sports like cricket, does anyone know much about the lenses performance with the converters?

Big Mike · Jun 25, 2008

Yea i have tried shooting cricket before with a shorter lens and the results didn't come out too well! I have read that this lens performs well using teleconverters, which i have considered for taking pictures of sports like cricket, does anyone know much about the lenses performance with the converters?

When using teleconvertors, you loose light. So it's good or even maybe even required that you start with fast lenses (F2.8 or better). So yes, this lens would probably be a good candidate for using a teleconvertor.

That being said, because you loose light with a TC, you loose shutter speed...which can hurt you when shooting sports. So it would be better to use a longer lens (like a 400mm F2.8) rather than a 200mm lens with a TC. Of course, that is much, much more expensive.

Rhys · Jun 25, 2008

How about the Sigma 50-500?

reg · Jun 25, 2008

Way too slow.

Sw1tchFX · Jun 25, 2008

Rhys said:
How about the Sigma 50-500?

I used a 50-500 yesterday and yeah, it's way too slow. The zoom creep is tremendous, and if you buy it, you might as well buy a monopod or tripod with it as well. f/6.3 at 500mm without VR? Not really a winner in my book.

keith204 · Jun 25, 2008

I've got plenty of use out of the 70-200 f/2.8 by Sigma. Very good lens, and certainly one of the best bang for the buck lenses out there.

bhoskins · Jun 25, 2008

Thanks for all your help guys, sorry i haven't posted earlier, broke my nose playing football

, so been in hospital for a bit!

I think that I will definatly need a f/2.8 lens and the sigma looks like a good choice as the canon lenses are preety much out of my price range, so thanks again and I think I will purchase in the next few weeks !