Some Shots with my new Sigma 70-200

[herc182]

This lens is a beast...and I think (or at least hope) I got a good copy...straight out of the camera, the shots are very good. Contrast and sharpness great (in my opinion...this is using my eye and not computer software to analyse it.

Will post some straight out of the camera shots if anyone wants me too.

Here are a selection I took in Cambridge, UK.

1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/3356836487_e9cd86789f_b.jpg

2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3356827905_2f8fd8df4e_b.jpg

3
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1315/3353731010_f500f43a72_b.jpg

4
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3356767019_b22e1cf698_b.jpg

5
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1236/3352900891_d686fa6957_b.jpg

Comments and Critique welcome.

Let me know if you guys want SOOC shots...if you wanna buy one!

Thanks

[XaiLo]

Congrats, I like #4.

[r3g]

Ditto 4 is awesome

[herc182]

thanks guys...to be honest the lighting was amazing and I was in the right place at the right time!

[Rooz]

beautiful shots mate ! love #4/5. this is more a thread about photographers skill and eye rather than lens performance though.

[herc182]

thanks Rooz.

You are right that maybe this is not a lens test as such...guess I was just over excited with the lens :D

The weight of it is superb too. I think it really helps with handling...best thing is that the filter size is the same as my sigma 10-20 so I dont need to buy a new polarisor :D

[TheObiJuan]

I just got mine yesterday and agree it's heavy BUT it is very well built.
I haven't done any pixel peeping or real close looking, but I like it.
Where do you live, the fog makes your images look enchanting.

[rawpaw18]

4 is crazy good, I love the timing of the joggers pony tail showing some motion to the scene

[Cyberwlf]

4 is my fav shot too, but from those shots i find it hard to judge lens performance (compared to shots ive seen from the Nikkor atleast..)

[mugsisme]

At first I didn't like 4 as much as I like 1. But then when I saw that everyone was commenting on 4, I looked at it more closely. I think that what makes it interesting is that while it is a still picture, there is some movement to it. (The pony tail as pointed out.) But also there is a sort of surreal feel to the picture. What time did you take these pictures? How much heavier is this lens compared to the Nikon lens? (just curious.)

[herc182]

I just got mine yesterday and agree it's heavy BUT it is very well built.
I haven't done any pixel peeping or real close looking, but I like it.
Where do you live, the fog makes your images look enchanting.

I dont think I will pixel peep. Ultimately, as long as I like the look of the photos to my eye, I am happy with it.


4 is crazy good, I love the timing of the joggers pony tail showing some motion to the scene

Thanks Rawpaw...unfortunately that was lucky :) However, I did prefer this one over 2 others...


4 is my fav shot too, but from those shots i find it hard to judge lens performance (compared to shots ive seen from the Nikkor atleast..)

You are right...this isnt really aimed at lens performance. If you want some SOOC shots, I will start another thread...let me know


At first I didn't like 4 as much as I like 1. But then when I saw that everyone was commenting on 4, I looked at it more closely. I think that what makes it interesting is that while it is a still picture, there is some movement to it. (The pony tail as pointed out.) But also there is a sort of surreal feel to the picture. What time did you take these pictures? How much heavier is this lens compared to the Nikon lens? (just curious.)

I took these photos around 9am in Cambridge, England...beautiful city (photographically)

[D70FAN]

Yup... for the price the Sigma's offer a decent pro-grade lens that work well on Nikons (with one exception). My D70 loves em, my D80 hated em... so bye, bye D80... D700 here I come (tried the Sigma on a freinds D700... worked fine).

I too like #4.:)

[Cyberwlf]

Reminds me, i should post some of my photos i took last year with my D300 from Cambridge online at some point :p

But yeah i quite like Cambridge photographically too. Would be interested to see peoples shots from inside the cathedrals at the university there and what they achieved with their Nikon's actually.

[TheObiJuan]

So I finally got to look at some macros on my laptop and at f/2.8 the lens front focuses, which is normal.
I guess I'll send it off to Sigma or sell it.
I paid $530 shipped off of another forum for it, despite being 1 month old or so.
If Sigma can't fix it I'll upgrade to an L.

[craigyc]

Very nice shots Herc! Cambridge is indeed a beautiful city and you've captured it perfecty. Your doing your new lens justice. Keep it up.

[Rooz]

i think there are alot of people curios to see how this lens performs.

[herc182]

So I finally got to look at some macros on my laptop and at f/2.8 the lens front focuses, which is normal.
I guess I'll send it off to Sigma or sell it.
I paid $530 shipped off of another forum for it, despite being 1 month old or so.
If Sigma can't fix it I'll upgrade to an L.

Hmmm thats the problem with Sigma...consistency. I took a MASSIVE risk getting this one on ebay...especially since it was over a year old and no warranty.

I have number 2 as my desktop background and noticed how SHARP it is...could be the lighting but I am really happy with it so far. Especially at 200mm


Very nice shots Herc! Cambridge is indeed a beautiful city and you've captured it perfecty. Your doing your new lens justice. Keep it up.

Thanks very much craigyc! I appreciate it. Although, being honest, it would have taken a tit to mess up the shots with the lighting that I had...the biggest most important thing to remember with this lens (after stepping up from the nikon 55-200) is shutter speed. There is no VR and you must bear in mind the 1/focal length rule (taking into consideration the crop factor). The weight of the lens means you can get away with maybe a little slower, but not by much.
I wondered the use of the tripid collar, then realised pretty quickly!

[herc182]

i think there are alot of people curios to see how this lens performs.

Noted Rooz.

I will try and take some sample shots at different apertures but I am NOT technical minded so it will be pretty basic :)

If someone wants to see something in particular let me know.

Note, that contrary to my signiture, this is NOT the macro version. I screwed up on ebay and was quite irritated by that. Were it not for its performance, I would have tried re-selling it.

So this it pre - macro version.

[TheObiJuan]

I'm eager to see your test results. I will do some testing now to see if it needs to go to Sigma for calibration.

[herc182]

ok...will probably have a stab over the weekend.

something I also noted was just how quick the focussing is...think the bigger aperture probably helps this. Its definitely faster than my nikon 55-200

[Rooz]

i think from memory this was a big bonus of the siggie. the sigma AF was faster and more accurate and the tamron was optically a little better. VR has done alot of research on this and i think that was his final assessment, in a nutshell.

personally, i';d prefer better AF. you cant PP a shot thats OOF cos the AF cant keep up, but you can always sharpen an image up in PP if you nailed the focus.

[Visual Reality]

Yeah Rooz is right. From all the reading I did, I definitely can't recommend the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 based on how often it was missing focus. It made me stick with my 70-300 VR, despite the 4.5-5.6 aperture :(

Really, really yearning for a Nikkor 70-200 f/4 ala Canon.

[Cyberwlf]

Why an f4 and not the actual f2.8 Nikkor 70-200 though? ie What would make you pick that over a real Nikon product? Pricing or something else?

Also in your research how did the Tamron/Sigma compare to the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8's?

[herc182]

To be honest I wasnt tempted by the Tamron...(and it wasnt on ebay at a decent price anyway!).

the 70-200 nikon was a dream for me, but so was the price. Well out of my price bracket unfortunately.

And, VR, I too would love a 70-200 f/4...

[K1W1]

The Sigma 70-200 has been a poor mans Nikon 70-200VR for several years. I know I've looked at it. At one stage about 2 years ago you could buy it brand new in Australia with legit warranty, blah, blah for just under $1000.00 (US$650.00). It's gone up quite a bit since then.

[eddie_dane]

I had the siggie 70-200 2.8 (the non-macro version) and I loved it. Well built and sharp. I sold mine on ebay when i finally got the nikkor version. Now that I have had both I will say the AF on the nikkor is a little bit faster and more accurate, especially in low-light which is where I was using it most of the time. Sometimes the Siggie would hunt around before locking in. In good daylight, the were pretty comparable. And of course, the nikkor has VR but I haven't put it through the paces enough to really appreciate that portion of it.

[Cyberwlf]

Which is the heavier/bulkier of the two? Nikkor or Sigma? And would you mind posting a shot taken with the Sigma and the same or similar with the Nikkor just to be able to make a side by side comparison?

[herc182]

Cyberwlf. Not sure who you are asking...but i dont have a nikkor zoom to take a shot with...however, like i said, i will try and take some shots this weekend for you at varying apertures...not very techinical but all i can do really!

weight wise the nikon is 1.470kg and the siggie 1.345kg (Macro version)...from www.photozone.de. Not much in it

[Cyberwlf]

Last post was directed at Eddie :) But that would be cool to see too!

[eddie_dane]

I would guess the sigma is heavier, it is shorter and more stout compared to the nikkor. The nikkor is narrower and a good bit longer physically. The build quality of the nikkor is the highest of any lens I have ever seen. It seems like it would last forever. The sigma is certainly built much better than your average lens and is no slouch.

It would be hard pressed for me to simulate a side by side since I don't have the sigma anymore but I will try to find some sigma shots and see if I can recreate it with the nikkor.

[Visual Reality]

Why an f4 and not the actual f2.8 Nikkor 70-200 though? ie What would make you pick that over a real Nikon product? Pricing or something else?
Primarily the price, and secondarily the weight. Look at the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 vs the f/4. Half the price and half the weight, the perfect middle ground that Nikon does not have.

I would expect Nikon to price a lens like this in the $800-900 range.


Also in your research how did the Tamron/Sigma compare to the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8's?
They are both sharp but the same old story - the Sigma has better focus and the Tamron is slightly sharper. With the purpose of these lenses, it really disqualifies any lens that cannot focus well so the Tamron is out.

[ANP !!!]

3rd and 4th are the best, nice shots.

[TheObiJuan]

I took the Sigma down to the beach today and was happy with it wide open at the tele end, I believe 150mm or so.
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3219/img0190x.jpg