Anyone shooting with a Sigma AF 70-200 F/2.8 Non IS?

nicknackgtb

Just looking for a bit of feedback on this lense as Im thinking of getting one. The canon just is a little to expensive for me at the minute!

Any criticisms or remarks wanted.

cheers

Borderfox

Had one and its a really good lens, the pictures out of it look a little warmer compared to the Canon model but doesnt really make much difference.

Did a lot of work with my version and it served me well

Arciphel

I have this lens in a Nikon mount, shoot it on a full frame body. Great lens if you get a sharp copy!

Flickr set of my pics taken with this lens here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/arciphel/sets/72157606453284765/

LeoB

I have it and think its a very good lens. I would have liked the Canon version but could not stretch my budget that far without a trip to divorce courts.:)

Brndn

I have it and love it. I especially love the HSM autofocus, sounds really nice. Nice weight to if too, feels well made. Compares well to my Canon 200mm F1.8L (at 2.8).

nicknackgtb

Well by the sounds of it it seems to be a great way to go into tele lenses. Canon just too expensive, and the canon 70-200 f/4 is about the same price. so think the sigma is the better option.

DaireQuinlan

I dunno, I think unless you really have a compelling reason for that 1 extra stop, that you'd be as well going for the f/4. Those f/2.8 zooms are pretty enormous and heavy. I contemplated getting one for a while (for nikon) but eventually tried one for a day and decided against it. I'm guessing the f/4 version is probably about half the weight, dunno length wise though, the same ?

Ballyman

I'd agree with Daire. If you don't need the 2.8 then get the canon f4 instead. I had the sigma as well and it was gthe best sigma lens I had by a long way. Definetly recommended. It is big and heavy though.

chisel

I have a canon F4L (non-IS) and although I love it (speed of focus is great) I would really like the 2.8. I'm about to put up a post in adverts to see if anyone would be interested in a trade.


An aside: I really wonder how much good IS really is. I have it on my 24-105 and never use it. I've tried it out on a few occasions but never really got any benefit from it. Makes me wonder whether the IS is worth paying for. I know if it was me, not worth anything bar watching resale value if you thought you might want to resell it.

pete4130

Had one on a full frame sensor and sold it within 2 months. Not good at all. I had a bad copy but there shouldn't be bad ones. I made do with the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR which was much sharper.

Borderfox

chisel wrote: »

I have a canon F4L (non-IS) and although I love it (speed of focus is great) I would really like the 2.8. I'm about to put up a post in adverts to see if anyone would be interested in a trade.


An aside: I really wonder how much good IS really is. I have it on my 24-105 and never use it. I've tried it out on a few occasions but never really got any benefit from it. Makes me wonder whether the IS is worth paying for. I know if it was me, not worth anything bar watching resale value if you thought you might want to resell it.

IS is 1/30th of a second handheld and also handy for panning

pete4130

Had one on a full frame sensor and sold it within 2 months. Not good at all. I had a bad copy but there shouldn't be bad ones. I made do with the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR which was much sharper.

chisel

Exactly what was wrong with it pete4130?

melekalikimaka

i was alway under the impression it wasnt a patch on the nikon/canon equivalent...

Borderfox

Its not far off tbh, I have the 120-300 f2.8 Sigma and its superb

Ballyman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i was alway under the impression it wasnt a patch on the nikon/canon equivalent...

Apart from the faster focusing on the Canon I can't really see any difference between the pics taken with the Sigma and the Canon 70-200.
If you crop to 100% there might be an ever so slight sharpness tilt towards the canon but it's not really noticeable to be honest and once you sharpen them up in LR then they are identical.

DaireQuinlan

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i was alway under the impression it wasnt a patch on the nikon/canon equivalent...

Anecdotally, sigma's quality control is reputed to be a bit sloppy. So bad examples of lenses show up with much higher regularity than Nikon or Canon brand ones. Good examples of most of the sigma lenses, particularly recent ones, seem to hold their own against the own brand ones.

pete4130

chisel wrote: »

Exactly what was wrong with it pete4130?

It just wasn't sharp no matter what the aperture or shutter speed. The AF wasn't that fast or great in low light, the colour reproduction was terrible, it lacked contrast. It just didn't perform for a brand new €600 odd lens. I replaced it with Nikon's 80-200mm 2.8 D (twin ring) for €450 second hand and it was lightyears ahead in every aspect. I'd be looking for an 80-200 2.8 if your in the Market for non IS/VR lenses if your shooting Nikon.

Borderfox

The big obstacle Sigma have is the same lens construction but many different mounts to adapt to, true there is not a lot of difference between 100% crops on the Canon and Sigma but the f2.8IS brings IS and weather sealing to the table.

DougL

I recently came into possession of one of these lenses, and to my eyes, there is a lack of contrast and slight yellow shift, but it's not too bad.

There's a thorough review at http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/.

chisel

mmm interesting reading. So the moral of the story is that if you get a good one, then really theres feck all between it and the canon - and you gain the extra bit of light.

Now how about the sigma 2.8 vs the canon 2.8?

minkynuts

I have owned both the sigma 70-200 2.8 and the 120-300 2.8 (still have this one), When the 70-200 was working it was a very good lens but it spent so much time in sigma repairs (Bandon) due to bits coming loose that I got rid of it for the Canon non IS 70-200 2.8. Now the 120-300mm is another kettle of fish, the images from this are as good as my canon 300 2.8 non IS, and it does not give me any problems.

Rob