PDA

View Full Version : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM



r3g
08-08-2007, 01:05 PM
Anyone have any experience with it? Im wondering if its a worth while piece of glass to add to the collection for lower light zooming. Im not so concerned about its macro capabilities though it is a plus to have. Ive been able to pull of some pretty nice indoor stuff with my VR 55-200mm so being able to open up to 2.8 insead of 4+ is very appealing to me.

Ray Schnoor
08-08-2007, 01:37 PM
Anyone have any experience with it? Im wondering if its a worth while piece of glass to add to the collection for lower light zooming. Im not so concerned about its macro capabilities though it is a plus to have. Ive been able to pull of some pretty nice indoor stuff with my VR 55-200mm so being able to open up to 2.8 insead of 4+ is very appealing to me.
I have had this lens for about 6 months now. It seems to take some pretty good photos. I use it mostly for sports. The focus is fast and accurate. The photos are sharp. It is heavy, though. I normally use this lens with a monopod.

The majority of photos in this location are taken with this lens, although a few are taken with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lens: http://rschnoor.smugmug.com/gallery/2961562#161201336

Ray.

Stoller
08-08-2007, 08:05 PM
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 It has been a good lens for the price. Great for action shots and fast focusing. It does produce soft images opened more than f5 above 150mm which is why I replaced it with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8. The Nikkor is twice the price. The link below will take you to a section of my gallery with pictures only taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 if you would like to check them out.
http://www.mikestoller.com/gallery/2841010#152199592

aparmley
08-08-2007, 08:16 PM
There are two conflicting reports from two owners. . . Sorry not stirring just saying. . .

Reg - Have you considered the Nikon 80-200 2.8. At the price point of the Sigma it might be worth a look. I know it doesn't have AF-S or HSM, but I'd think it would still focus a lot quicker than our 55-200s. Just throwing out that option.

r3g
08-08-2007, 09:38 PM
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 It has been a good lens for the price. Great for action shots and fast focusing. It does produce soft images opened more than f5 above 150mm which is why I replaced it with the Nikkor 70-200 2.8. The Nikkor is twice the price. The link below will take you to a section of my gallery with pictures only taken with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 if you would like to check them out.
http://www.mikestoller.com/gallery/2841010#152199592




Thanks for the link. What kind of PP if any did you do with those? Mind posting a full size random shot to display the softness your talking about wide open sometime?



@ aparmley - How much better is the quality over the Sigma? Even if I wasnt lazy I would never want to be stuck shooting sports with MF. Good lookin out though. :)

Stoller
08-08-2007, 10:22 PM
Here are a few full size. All taken with D50 and Sigma 70-200 2.8

1/800 f3.5 150mm http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/152198956-O.jpg

1/800 f4.5 165mm http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/152199781-O.jpg

1/800 f5.6 200mm http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/152198414-O.jpg

fionndruinne
08-08-2007, 11:16 PM
Personally I wouldn't want to MF a telephoto, although I don't mind it with macro and such. But that's just me.

Have you checked out the 50-150mm HSM I talked about in another topic? I know the loss of 50mm on the telephoto end could be a handicap, but it is a much more compact(ish) lens. But then, if it's for a specific venue, compactness might not be as big of an issue.

r3g
08-08-2007, 11:23 PM
Personally I wouldn't want to MF a telephoto, although I don't mind it with macro and such. But that's just me.

Have you checked out the 50-150mm HSM I talked about in another topic? I know the loss of 50mm on the telephoto end could be a handicap, but it is a much more compact(ish) lens. But then, if it's for a specific venue, compactness might not be as big of an issue.


I actually am considering that too. The loss of 50mm wont hurt too bad to be honest because in sports there are very few times where I actually zoomed to 200mm. I find that the majority of shots are between 130mm and 160mm. And no I dont mind heavy lenses which is good considering Im looking for something faster :]


I am really attached to my VR 55-200mm but I know if I get either of the 2 Sigmas I really will have no reason to keep it. Sure it has VR but going from F4 to F2.8 is a pretty big step and probably wont need VR especially with the D40s good high ISO performance.

aparmley
08-09-2007, 06:14 AM
Thanks for the link. What kind of PP if any did you do with those? Mind posting a full size random shot to display the softness your talking about wide open sometime?



@ aparmley - How much better is the quality over the Sigma? Even if I wasnt lazy I would never want to be stuck shooting sports with MF. Good lookin out though. :)

Crap. . . See I knew there was a damn good reason why you never mentioned it! Sorry for wasting 2 minutes of everyone's life, you'll never get those back. :o

r3g
08-09-2007, 11:19 AM
Ive actually decided to go with the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX HSM. I wont miss that extra 50mm of zoom because Ive also decided to get the 70-300VR. :]