Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM

[Silver-Arrowz]

http://www.pbase.com/silver_arrowz/image/69084003/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/silver_arrowz/image/68255895/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/silver_arrowz/image/65889192/original.jpg

[scottykm]

so Jennb do you use the canon or the sigma 1.4 tc?

[JennB]

so Jennb do you use the canon or the sigma 1.4 tc?

Hi there,

I use the Sigma 1.4x TC. Not a bad combo at all with the 70-200.:D

[speedy_2]

Couple of my first pics with this lens this year!! I missed using it!

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6232/blues0710hv2.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6237/blues078fb6.jpg

[Borderfox]

Very nice, first one looks really close. Second one is superb

[john.hem]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Bird-Unknown.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Girl.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Thai-Woman.jpg

John

[scottykm]

john, like the 3rd shot, classic thailand!

just posted this on another thread, then thought of here

20mm@f2.8 1/640

http://scottykm.smugmug.com/photos/110620084-M.jpg

@ ISO 400

[caiguar]

ok guys I got this lens a couple of days ago and took a trip to the zoo to take some pics, here are a couple to add to this great thread. This is the one that pushed me to get this lens instead of the canon f4 hope you guys like them

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/caiguar0/tiger2800x600.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a350/caiguar0/zoo4800x600.jpg

[aCiD99]

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/panda2.jpg

[siejoka]

Oh man,

I just took the plunge people. I saw this lens up for bid on ebay and I, out of boredom, took part in the bidding on the very last minute, and to my surprise, I won the item. The 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG.

Oh gosh, I hope I did the right thing. =D. Can anyone tell me the procedure to test the lens? I wanna make sure I get a good copy after spending $$$$.

Thanks!

[syntrix]

Oh man,

I just took the plunge people. I saw this lens up for bid on ebay and I, out of boredom, took part in the bidding on the very last minute, and to my surprise, I won the item. The 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG.

Oh gosh, I hope I did the right thing. =D. Can anyone tell me the procedure to test the lens? I wanna make sure I get a good copy after spending $$$$.

Thanks!


I'd probably mount the lens to the body and take some pics ;)

[siejoka]

Haha, touche syntrix =)

Any specific settings? Like, what zoom range, or what aperture settings? Also, I see that people seem to be worrying about the quality when you do 100% crop, is this a very big issue for a lens quality?

Thanks

[aCiD99]

http://www.bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/zoo1.jpg

[syntrix]

Haha, touche syntrix =)

Any specific settings? Like, what zoom range, or what aperture settings? Also, I see that people seem to be worrying about the quality when you do 100% crop, is this a very big issue for a lens quality?

Thanks


Besides the implied that I posted... to go out and shoot.... you can print a focus chart and try that. Just make sure the lighting is good and you do a few samples at different f stops.

But try to not use the focus chart for 100% of your judgement. I'd maybe try some sidewalk, or road, or building.... choose a contrasty middle focus point, and snap a few off.

Then pull them off the cam at 100% and check them out.

I have the newest macro version of this lens, and absolutely LOVE the color and contrast. I'm very sure I've posted a few in this thread before!

edit: since this is more of a "sample pic" thread, here's one:

http://asher.lasvegastech.com/asher_window.jpg

and I should add that that's in the upper range of zoom at f/2.8, and I didn't do any sharpening or white balance correction. Probably a bad example.

[prime80]

Can anyone tell me the procedure to test the lens? I wanna make sure I get a good copy after spending $$$$.

Just shoot with it...if you're happy with the results, then just be happy. IF you're unhappy with the results, THEN start testing stuff. I'd not waste your time hunting for a problem until one presents itself.

[siejoka]

Thanks for the advice syntrix, I'll try to do what you just told me.

Prime80, very good advice. After spending quite a lot of money for a college student like me, the last thing I want to do is to hunt for problems. Like you said, it's wiser to just shoot and see the images coming out of this baby. =)

Thanks all, have a good weekend.

[Rhinotherunt]

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is one of my favorites in my gear list. I like it as well as my 24-105 L and 85 1.8. Just wish it focused slightly faster. I only notice it on my 5D in AI Servo. In on shot AF it is deadly sharp and accurate! The color cast is a lil warmer than my Canon lenses, but if you shoot RAW you may never notice.

[brunester]

woot just ordered one yesterday

[snajczuk]

So can anyone who has the macro version attest to it being faster at focusing? I have heard many different things about this lens, is it worth getting the macro version?

Also, maybe its just me being the gadget degenerate that I am, but is a 30D a sensible upgrade from the 350D? I guess I'm just one of those guys who's never happy with last year's model. I'm the same way with my EF-S 17-85 (which I love...) and the 17-55 f/2.8.

Too bad I'm a poor college student; I find myself drooling over many of the gear lists here.

Cheers from across the pond.

[Rhinotherunt]

So can anyone who has the macro version attest to it being faster at focusing? I have heard many different things about this lens, is it worth getting the macro version?

Also, maybe its just me being the gadget degenerate that I am, but is a 30D a sensible upgrade from the 350D? I guess I'm just one of those guys who's never happy with last year's model. I'm the same way with my EF-S 17-85 (which I love...) and the 17-55 f/2.8.

Too bad I'm a poor college student; I find myself drooling over many of the gear lists here.

Cheers from across the pond.

Well, the main reasons for upgrading the body is for ease of use, faster and more accurate AF, better buffer, more fps, more durable body. IQ is not a good reason to upgrade a body. For IQ upgrades you should upgrade glass. The Rebel series are very capable cameras. I have a 300D that I used exclusively for 5 years.

[gene23]

I'm looking at this lens as well. Does it have a focus limiter?

[Borderfox]

Doesnt have a fucus limiter but AF is very fast.

[momentz]

I've posted these elsewhere, but thought they'd make a worthy addtion to this thread.

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG MACRO

both images 100% CROPS!! 200mm @ f8:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/evobit/Plants/_MG_2171.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/evobit/Plants/_MG_2191.jpg

[turbodude]

whoa is it just me or is there a crap ton of niose in picture 1 with 400 iso? push process?

[momentz]

whoa is it just me or is there a crap ton of niose in picture 1 with 400 iso? push process?

I think the texture of the cactus makes it look worse than it is :) Sure it's noisy, but it's 100% crop and I did have to tweak the colours to make it 'golden' as it's meant to be.

[Rhinotherunt]

Here is the Siggy on a 5D. ;)
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/_MG_0736.jpg
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/_MG_0716.jpg
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/_MG_0730.jpg
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/_MG_0717.jpg
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/_MG_0732.jpg

Gotta LUV this lens. :)

[bagtagsell]

W/ 2x TCon
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/200/512666608_90066414c4.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/512705913_43f9a4221b.jpg?v=0

W/Out
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/486028460_b907945134.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/486059977_095bb7e17e.jpg?v=0

[_aravena]

FINALLY! Dell has delivered and here are my first shots. Testing will be done tomorrow at church and ducks too! I love it so much!

Also thought I'd help with the macro selection. it's nice that it focuses close and the speed is amazing. Of course i've only had it for an hour but still.
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/8307/img3171sc0.jpg

Then of course one of my best model
http://img238.imageshack.us/img238/5030/img3159we4.jpg

[Denise40]

Here is one that I took using my lens last weekend. Be kind. CC welcomed. This came straight from my camera except for making it smaller to view here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/Denise40/Flower.jpg

[adam LC]

I'll be honest, I wanted the L 2.8 but could not afford it. Ten minutes ago.... I just pressed the button for the Siggy 2.8 EX DG Macro!!!!!!!! for £498 including delivery! As soon as it turns up, I'll post some duck shots (A-because I've never shot a duck and B-There are loads of ducks where I work!).
Peace.

[chrisa]

I bought my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 used, at first I thought I had a not so sharp copy. After using it for a couple of months my technique and skill improved and so did the quality of my pics. Given good light and correct exposure it is very sharp.

Chris
Canon 30D Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Chris_IMG_9417.jpghttp://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n147/chrisa62401/Carly_IMG_9331.jpg

[rdsmith3]

Here is the bored little brother at his sister's soccer game

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/159971585-M.jpg

[4walls]

Just picked up a used copy of this lens... this is from my first day out with it:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1300/552427536_5839f5230b_o.jpg
Exif Sub IFD

* Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/200 second = 0.00500 second
* Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 56/10 = F5.60
* Exposure Program = aperture priority (3)
* ISO Speed Ratings = 100
* Exif Version = 0221
* Original Date/Time = 2007:06:14 16:34:13
* Digitization Date/Time = 2007:06:14 16:34:13
* Components Configuration = 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
* Exposure Bias (EV) = -1/3 = -0.33
* Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
* Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
* Focal Length = 83/1 mm = 83.00 mm

100% Crop

[_aravena]

Concert photos as promised

http://a797.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/32/l_7a18bddced09e2bf08c38387d12f95f4.jpg

http://a812.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/46/l_e03b34b24fba64ca3471d7065f3a0d9b.jpg

http://a834.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/38/l_ffe26fde6ca5a6dc1b4b37fcc1e3cae9.jpg

[lostecm]

FYI...I trade my old sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6 in for 70-200 f2.8 macro thru
Sigma corperation..got it for 717.00 no shipping fees Total 717.00
thats it....good luck :lol:

[Yel00tlr]

I picked up a used macro version couple months ago.... still learning how to keep the camera still :mad:

[runninmann]

^^^ I thought he was dead!

[iwannabe]

Don't believe everything you read!
I'm loving the looks of this lens!! :)

[Yel00tlr]

There will always be di-hard fans.... don't let the appearance fool you.... some of their singing abilities were not as big as their hearts for the "King" ...... :lol:

[4walls]

I like how sharp this lens is at F/2.8

http://lh4.google.com/4walls/Rplt5rmswiI/AAAAAAAABCM/Oqtkihdb-J4/s800/8376_train.jpg

[vento]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1277/910947546_eba0c855f3.jpg

Duck shot.. inaugural shots for my 70-200mm. I love it so far.. tack sharp.

[mcmadkat]

Just got mine today, lovely and sharp, although a little prone to CA wide open in some light conditions. Nothing to worry about unless you print all your pictures 60x40".....

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3261/img9651copy2wt9.jpg

And for those that want it, a 100% crop.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/220/cropfl7.jpg

EXIF intact, shot with 30D @ f2.8

[fiveFPS]

Pictures are great! Keep them coming.. especially the motorsport photos =)

[mcmadkat]

Another one from me:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG (non-macro)

ISO1600 1/50 f4 200mm handheld!

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2295/img9303copytr9.jpg

[_aravena]

One of my new favs!

http://a762.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/94/l_1e01433d47f9c6714a13ee4b7cefc391.jpg

http://a362.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/123/l_1767733d7690aafa7c364002ab5e15e1.jpg

[mcmadkat]

One from last night:

EX DG non-marco version.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8129/img9903copy3ho0.jpg

[shkspr]

i shoot mostly concerts & borrowed a friends copy.

200mm @ 1/200 ~ f2.8 HAND HELD iso is 800, so a lot of noise.

save the image & check it out in ps.....

http://tjsphotographic.com/PRIVATE-PAGES/bigsigwideopen.html

i gotta get on eof my own!
tim

[05Xrunner]

Shot at f2.8
Pic isnt as good as it could be due to the fact i had to shoot through a grid fence as you can see it in the background
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/Zoo/IMG_5916.jpg

[_aravena]

Some new to show how great of a zoo lens it is:

http://a9.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/122/l_07dbadb555a4af508d8f90291c7ebb08.jpg

http://a350.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/124/l_b226390c15ec87243cd6d508648917a5.jpg

[hawk911]

Recent shot taken with the 70-200 and a 1.4xTC on the end of it; also with the 40D.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v179/wiwildwood/IMG_9824.jpg

[jacobsen1]

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/acadia/IMG_3036.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/acadia/IMG_2935.jpg

I'd forgotten how sharp this lens really is. The first one is hand held in consistent 30mph winds, gusts to 50...

[rdsmith3]

Who gave you permission to take pictures of my house?! ;)

Those are great shots.

[bluebomberx]

200mm at f/4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2003/1573231732_296280e9bd.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/1573231732/)

200mm at f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2395/1552486867_e72076703e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/1552486867/)

70mm at f/10
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/1425919942_83a203a955.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/1425919942/)
97mm at f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/1972768966_292902a210.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/1972768966/)

[Mr. Clean]

Sigma versus Canon IS. I can't tell a difference but darnnit the Sigma doesn't have IS ...
http://home.comcast.net/~mdmortenson/70-200test_11-27-07_0001.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~mdmortenson/70-200test_11-27-07_0002.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~mdmortenson/70-200test_11-27-07_0003.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~mdmortenson/70-200test_11-27-07_0004.JPG

[bluebomberx]

Your photos won't load but they are viewable if I open them in another tab. Which is which?

[Mr. Clean]

I hit F5 and they showed up, other photos were missing too...Maybe a DB issue.

First two at Sigma 2.8 and 5.6, 2nd two are Canon 2.8 and 5.6

[twoshadows]

Here's one at iso3200, f/2.8 and 139mm, 1/500s (Macro Version):

http://www.pbase.com/iangreyphotography/image/90910650/original.jpg

Ian

[Aliengreen]

Hello, I recently purchased the non-macro version of this lens, and would like to know from you kind folks if the tripod collar ring does comes off or is it fixed in place and could only be tightened/loosened when necessary? I bought this second hand and it did not come with an instruction manual. I've trawled the Sigma site, and they seem to have no support on this matter. I am worried that if I twist the locking knob too far, I might render this totally useless. Thanks in advance, appreciate any help.

Bambam

[TeamSpeed]

Hello, I recently purchased the non-macro version of this lens, and would like to know from you kind folks if the tripod collar ring does comes off or is it fixed in place and could only be tightened/loosened when necessary? I bought this second hand and it did not come with an instruction manual. I've trawled the Sigma site, and they seem to have no support on this matter. I am worried that if I twist the locking knob too far, I might render this totally useless. Thanks in advance, appreciate any help.

Bambam

It comes off, but you have to rotate the lens in the ring until you can slide the ring off. The ring does not hinge out of the way.

[Aliengreen]

Oh i see..thanks so much TeamSpeed! Saved me from a lot of worried second-guessing there..Really helpful.

[Borderfox]

Rotate the knob and the tripod collar hinges off on my one

[GSH]

It comes off, but you have to rotate the lens in the ring until you can slide the ring off. The ring does not hinge out of the way.

Erm that sounds like the Canon tripod ring to me. The Sigma certainly does have a hinge. Just twist the locking knob until it's loose, then pull the knob out and it releases the catch.

[TeamSpeed]

Erm that sounds like the Canon tripod ring to me. The Sigma certainly does have a hinge. Just twist the locking knob until it's loose, then pull the knob out and it releases the catch.

Might be, but there are two sigma tripod rings too, so I am not sure if they are both the same.

[GSH]

Might be, but there are two sigma tripod rings too, so I am not sure if they are both the same.

The only 2 versions i'm aware of differ in the length of the "foot" where the thread is. The newer version is longer than the old one :)

[jack Sparrow]

Ive just got this lens S/H ive only had it out once just having a play with it, i tried to keep it at f2.8 when taking pics of my dog at different distances but i struggled to get a full focus, is this because when using it wide open the DOF is so narrow is will only focus correctly on a small area?, what i mean only a small area of my dog was in full focus. its ive looked at some of these pics and the whole subject seems to be in focus.

Im new to all this so still only learning, and im struggling a bit to get my head around ISO,shutter speed and aperture, and how to get it to work for what im after.

Regards
JS

[aCiD99]

Ive just got this lens S/H ive only had it out once just having a play with it, i tried to keep it at f2.8 when taking pics of my dog at different distances but i struggled to get a full focus, is this because when using it wide open the DOF is so narrow is will only focus correctly on a small area?, what i mean only a small area of my dog was in full focus. its ive looked at some of these pics and the whole subject seems to be in focus.

Im new to all this so still only learning, and im struggling a bit to get my head around ISO,shutter speed and aperture, and how to get it to work for what im after.

Regards
JS

Post some pics to help us help you. With info about each pic like shutter speed, etc.

If you're physically close to the dog, and it's moving around a lot (as dogs tend to do), getting good focus at 2.8 will be difficult.

[jack Sparrow]

Below are 3 pics i took with this lens, this was the first time i had been out with it, it was a slightly overcast day.

I had the camera which is a 400D set on TV, i was trying to keep the aperture as close to f2.8 by changing the shutter speed, the ISO would have been 200 if memory serves me correctly.

I am totally new to the world of Dslr so any tips on where i have gone wrong would be greatly appreciated, this is the set up i will be using the most for my outing with my dogs

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee203/Whippet_forum/IMG_0736.jpg

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee203/Whippet_forum/IMG_0762.jpg

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee203/Whippet_forum/IMG_0787.jpg

Regards
JS

[aCiD99]

Below are 3 pics i took with this lens, this was the first time i had been out with it, it was a slightly overcast day.

I had the camera which is a 400D set on TV, i was trying to keep the aperture as close to f2.8 by changing the shutter speed, the ISO would have been 200 if memory serves me correctly.

Dogs take a lot of practice to shoot well consistently, especially when they're a small subject in the frame. Did you have the camera set to use just the center focus point? If not, do this.

Also, to prevent underexposure, especially on overcast days with fast moving subjects, general practice would be to use Av, at 2.8, see what shutter speed you get, and then adjust your ISO so you're getting shutter speeds that are sufficiently high for the movement of your subject. 400-800ISO wouldn't be unexpected for shooting dogs on an overcast day.

Keep practicing as I think that's what will find you the most improvement.

-brad

[jack Sparrow]

Cheers for them tips Brad. I didnt have the camera set to the centre focus point but have done that now.

Like you say i will just keep plugging away at it, and hopefully it will eventually all fall into place.

Kind regards
JS

[erpetao]

Nice pictures and nice dog Jack. Just a little advice, when the weather is cloudy, you get a blueish tone, you can adjust the white balance to get warmer colours, setting it on the camera before you take the pictures, or shooting in raw and changing it later.

I did some PP on photoshop, I hope you like it:


http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee203/Whippet_forum/IMG_0736.jpg


http://qewo.com/dev/bur/glou/perrito.jpg

[jack Sparrow]

Bloody hell mate, what a difference:D i havent even got photoshop yet, i need to get my head around getting the best out of my setup before i even attempt to get my head around photoshop:lol:

White balance, how does this work in relation to taking pics? as i hadnt even given that a thought, god there is so much to remember should have stuck to my finepix point and shoot LOL.

got to say this is a brilliant site for the likes of me who havent got a clue, but slowly learning.

Once again thanks
Kind regards
Jack

[erpetao]

White balance, how does this work in relation to taking pics? as i hadnt even given that a thought, god there is so much to remember should have stuck to my finepix point and shoot LOL.


Check here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm

You can just start by adjusting in the camara the WB (check your manual) by setting it to Cloudy, Shade, Tungsten, etc. depending on the lighting conditions.

Even better, check how manual balance works. Basically, you take a picture of a white paper (or any 100% white surface) under the same lighting you are going to shoot, and then adjust the WB to that picture (check on the manual how to do that, it's through the menu). Then, your pictures will have 100% realistic colours.

[jack Sparrow]

Cheers for the tips mate, its greatly apreciated.

regards
Jack

[bluebomberx]

Canon 5D - Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM; 79mm - 1/640 at f/4, ISO 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/2255539985_c25f2c44cc_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2255539985/)

Canon 5D - Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM; 200mm - 1/320 at f/3.5, ISO 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2242769006_789e7d6597_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2242769006/)

[ronmayhew]

Sigma 70-200 shots:

http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/250805001_oMiGN-M.jpg (http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/250805001_oMiGN-XL.jpg)


http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/94183704_kAqH5-M.jpg (http://ronmayhew.smugmug.com/photos/94183704_kAqH5-L.jpg)

[rdsmith3]

I did not apply any sharpening to this picture. Shot at f/4.0, ISO 400, 179 mm hand held, 1/640 ss.


http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/256078095_Fayha-XL.jpg

[kevinmcdade]

Great thread, VERY good photos, and it appears to be one heck of a lens!!! I am in the market for a new 70-200 f/2.8 lens. I actually ordered a Canon 70-200 F/4 but I think I will be returning it to exchange it for the Sigma 70-200
F/2.8! I'm not a professional so I have a very hard time justifying the cost of the Canon 2.8 IS, which was my number 1 pick. I do shoot a lot sports, mostly road bike racing. Many of the races are in the evening, at the local Velodrome with not much light, and mountain bike races ALWAYS have tricky lighting. The faster lens will really come in handy.

Quesion for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 crowd: Do you guys/gals use a tripod or monopod when using this big lens? There are many situations where I can't use a tri or monopod so the majority of my time using this lens will be handheld. Has this been an issue? I may have to opt for the Canon F/4 but with IS.

[ronmayhew]

Quesion for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 crowd: Do you guys/gals use a tripod or monopod when using this big lens? There are many situations where I can't use a tri or monopod so the majority of my time using this lens will be handheld. Has this been an issue? I may have to opt for the Canon F/4 but with IS.[/quote]


I normally use a monopod when shooting softball, but I have shot motocross with it hand held with no problem.

[aCiD99]

Quesion for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 crowd: Do you guys/gals use a tripod or monopod when using this big lens? There are many situations where I can't use a tri or monopod so the majority of my time using this lens will be handheld. Has this been an issue? I may have to opt for the Canon F/4 but with IS.

Very rarely. Only on those days I'm working for 10 hours, and I know what my shooting style will be all day.

Even if you're shooting motox in low light, if your shutter is slow enough that IS would provide any substantial benefit to you, the motion blur of the subjects would be so bad it wouldn't matter anyways.

For action sports (or any where you need more shutter) light is more important than IS.

[kevinmcdade]

For action sports (or any where you need more shutter) light is more important than IS.

Very good explaination! Thank you very much!!!

[crosswire]

Its very hard to find this particular lens since the new macro one came out.Any idea if ther e are any major dif between the 2? There are more pics here for this lens than the newer one and plus is cheaper.
here in canada its like 1100$ f or the new 70-200f2.8 macro version.

[bluebomberx]

The new macro version might be sharper at f/2.8, but I'm not certain. It does focus closer. the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM has a minimum focus distance of roughly 6' while the newer macro version focuses around 3.3' I think.

[kevinmcdade]

I got my Sigma 70-200 2.8 II today. I went to the park this afternoon and took a few pics. The lens was a bit intimidating at first with the size and weight of it. Construction is excellent and I absolutely love the smooth movement of the zoom ring. It took me a few minutes to get acclimated to the weight of the lens but after several shots I reinforced my camera holding technique and, now, the lens feels great in my hand. I can't stop thinking about the lens and can't wait to get out and shoot more with it:D. It was the middle of the day so there wasn't much happening at the park. Of course, I had to include a duck photo. So far, I LOVE this lens!!!

[rdsmith3]

I got my Sigma 70-200 2.8 II today. I went to the park this afternoon and took a few pics. The lens was a bit intimidating at first with the size and weight of it. Construction is excellent and I absolutely love the smooth movement of the zoom ring. It took me a few minutes to get acclimated to the weight of the lens but after several shots I reinforced my camera holding technique and, now, the lens feels great in my hand. I can't stop thinking about the lens and can't wait to get out and shoot more with it:D. It was the middle of the day so there wasn't much happening at the park. Of course, I had to include a duck photo. So far, I LOVE this lens!!!


Me too.

Those are nice shots. I see you already updated your signature.

[kevinmcdade]

Me too.

Those are nice shots. I see you already updated your signature.

Congrats! Have you had a chance to do any shooting with it yet? If so, what are your imressions? Also, have you tried your Sigma 1.4x tc with it yet? I'm interested in getting one as well.

[neil_g]

Quesion for the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 crowd: Do you guys/gals use a tripod or monopod when using this big lens? There are many situations where I can't use a tri or monopod so the majority of my time using this lens will be handheld. Has this been an issue? I may have to opt for the Canon F/4 but with IS.

99% of the time i hand hold my 70-200. like this weekend wanding around the forest watching the rallye, its not THAT heavy to be honest..

[kevinmcdade]

99% of the time i hand hold my 70-200. like this weekend wanding around the forest watching the rallye, its not THAT heavy to be honest..

Now that I have mine and have used it I can see that it is possible to handhold it in most cases. I gotta admit that when I first took it of the box and mounted it to my camera body I was a bit intimidated. I walked around with it quite a bit yesterday and had no problems. I now wish my other lenses were a bit heavier:D

[neil_g]

indeed. i find its perfectly balanced on the front of my 20D (no grip).

[GSH]

A couple more from mine. I thought i'd already posted these in this thread but i've looked and i haven't...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Other/IMG_2948.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Other/IMG_2610-Sharpened.jpg

I really should use the lens more often but since i got the MK2N i automatically reach for the 120-300.

[aCiD99]

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/automotive/large/naias7.jpg

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/automotive/large/naias12.jpg

My first time trying skiiing:
http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/others/large/ski1.jpg

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/others/large/ski3.jpg

[Aliengreen]

All the previous posts have wonderful sample shots, especially when noted that no post processing/ sharpening were done, and even shot handheld! Kevin McDade's shots of the ducks and pitbull, for example, are jaw-droppingly sharp, and with a lens like that, I wouldn't second-guess taking portraits of people as well, where tack sharp focus is demanded on the eyes. However, as an owner of this particular lens, I would have to say my experience with it is mixed. Here are some recent tests I did after suspecting some focusing problems: (N.B. lens mounted on a Canon 40D, on a tripod, no sharpening applied, cropped for size, adjusted levels, standard mode)

Pic 1. Shot at (f/2.8, 1/250sec, 103mm, ISO 640)
Pic 2. Shot at (f/11, 1/200sec, 200mm, ISO 100)

Guys, are my eyes problematic, or do these samples pass muster for you, sharpness wise? Sharpening should be one post-processing/editing step kept to the minimum, and I believe good lenses shouldn't add to the workflow load.

[kevinmcdade]

I'm still fairly new to photography and do not have a highly trained eye but those shots look pretty darn sharp to me especially with no PP done. The first one shot at f/2.8 you have to realise the shallow DOF that this lens produces. On the second image I am able to clearly see all details, count eyelashes, see every hair in the brow, and skin pores. I'd like to see what some of the others, who are more trained with pixel peeping, have to say.

My 70-200 is the sharpest thing that I own or have ever owned. It makes it pretty hard to shoot with anything else. My PP with this lens is done in DPP with just a few clicks and adjustments.

[Aliengreen]

I had a nagging suspicion that this lens performs very well outdoors, particularly in bright sunlight, since most of the sample pics shown here were shot in that situation. So, having had used this lens mostly at night (I cover local events like concerts and fashion shows) or indoors, I went out yesterday to the local park, and shot samples with the lens on. The results are revealing (this time, shots were handheld, and the weather was mainly cloudy, still only a crop was the post-processing applied).

Pic 1. Kiddie Bike (f/5.0, 200mm, 1/200sec, ISO 100)
Pic 2. Nanny and Child (f/4.5, 146mm, 1/400sec, ISO 100)


They were indeed sharp! At least, sharp to my liking, or quite similar to the other pics in this thread (ah..joy at last :D ). But, here's the kicker. After I got home, I mounted the camera on a tripod and took pictures of a bag, by the window, with ample sunlight streaming in (sample in my following post).

[Aliengreen]

Pic 3. Handbag (f/2.8, 1/125sec, 200mm, ISO 100)

Here I find the lens isn't as stellar as it was when used outdoors in bright sunlight. Notice my area of focus was the shiny golden buckle in the center of the bag, yet the auto-focus chose rather the surrounding studs in the foreground. Though this is hardly empirical evidence about the lens' performance, my conclusion from this, and other past experiences, is simply that shooting indoors with this lens is to gamble with sharpness. I would think twice taking the Sigma to say, a wedding, cocktails or similar important functions held indoors in the late afternoon or evening, unless you can compensate with lights or camera settings(the interdependent triangle of ISO, shutter and aperture), or prepare yourself for a relatively longer PP session..

@kevinmcdade - thanks man for taking time to review my previous samples. though i'm not an expert too, I did expect the lens to match the glowing reviews that made me purchase it in the first place (plus i was really envious of you folks who got a good copy ;)). Here's hoping the gurus point out what I may be doing wrong...

[rdsmith3]

Pic 3. Handbag (f/2.8, 1/125sec, 200mm, ISO 100)

Here I find the lens isn't as stellar as it was when used outdoors in bright sunlight. Notice my area of focus was the shiny golden buckle in the center of the bag, yet the auto-focus chose rather the surrounding studs in the foreground. Though this is hardly empirical evidence about the lens' performance, my conclusion from this, and other past experiences, is simply that shooting indoors with this lens is to gamble with sharpness.
...

Your conclusion may be correct, but I do not believe that your sample picture can lead you to that conclusion. There is an area of the picture that is sharp, but it is not the part that you want to be sharp. If it were just the case of the lens being soft at f/2.8 then you would not see the studs appear sharply in focus, right? Have you checked the focus point? As you undoubtedly know, the DOF at 200 mm and f/2.8 is very shallow. If the focus point was off, it could produce the result you got.

It could also be front focusing, but I would think you would need more testing to prove that, and it would seem that you would get the same issue outdoors.

I am not trying to debate you or criticize you, but just suggesting that your conclusion may be premature.

[Aliengreen]

Your conclusion may be correct, but I do not believe that your sample picture can lead you to that conclusion. There is an area of the picture that is sharp, but it is not the part that you want to be sharp. If it were just the case of the lens being soft at f/2.8 then you would not see the studs appear sharply in focus, right? Have you checked the focus point? As you undoubtedly know, the DOF at 200 mm and f/2.8 is very shallow. If the focus point was off, it could produce the result you got.

It could also be front focusing, but I would think you would need more testing to prove that, and it would seem that you would get the same issue outdoors.

I am not trying to debate you or criticize you, but just suggesting that your conclusion may be premature.

thanks rdsmith3, no debate here and really appreciate your honest opinion. We all want to get the best out of our gear, and wish the same satisfaction for all our colleagues as well. If equipment is performing less than expected because of "pilot error," then by all means, blast away! :)

Since reviewing my results after shooting outdoors, I also feel I may be doing something wrong. I did shoot a series of pics of that bag, using only the center-point focus point, with little difference. I'll try your suggestion and shoot at different focal lengths and apertures, and use the other focus points. As for the front focus issue, I downloaded a focusing chart I found here: http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart/ and tried applying it to the Sigma. Turns out, there's a bit of a back focus with my lens, so I definitely feel it might be "user-at-fault," else, why would it perform so variedly, right?

Ultimately, you're correct, I may have judged the lens prematurely. I'm taking this heavy baby out for (a lot) of further road testing. Thanks again..

[JCheungPhoto]

So, are there any persistant problems using this lens? I plan to mount the 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro II (mkII version) on a FF body, so what can I expect?

[adam*]

So, are there any persistant problems using this lens? I plan to mount the 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro II (mkII version) on a FF body, so what can I expect?

I used to own the non macro version and found it nearly as good as the L, definately great value for money.

[JCheungPhoto]

I used to own the non macro version and found it nearly as good as the L, definately great value for money.

I'm looking at a new Macro version (mkII) sigma 70-200, how about that?

[kevinmcdade]

I'm still loving mine. I use it every chance I get. I have the DG EX Macro II version.

[adam*]

I couldn't tell you as i've never owned it but judging by prices, definately go for it! As you can see from the ample samples here - it definately delivers.

[JCheungPhoto]

yea, its very inexpensive for a 70-200 f2.8

[adam*]

If you have the money and don't need IS, buy it!

[JCheungPhoto]

I never need IS, I shoot with a tripod for stationary subjects or portraits and handhold for sports (when I dont need IS anyway)

[rdsmith3]

Here are two shots with the 70-200 and a Sigma 1.4x tc

It's not a duck, but

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/265258820_wDrU2-L.jpg

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/265258947_XMGri-L.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

Here are two shots with the 70-200 and a Sigma 1.4x tc

It's not a duck, but

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/265258820_wDrU2-L.jpg

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/265258947_XMGri-L.jpg

beautiful shots, were these taken with the newest MkII macro version?

[rdsmith3]

beautiful shots, were these taken with the newest MkII macro version?

My box says APO EX DG Macro, but nothing about Mk II. Does that answer your question?

[aCiD99]

My box says APO EX DG Macro, but nothing about Mk II. Does that answer your question?

That will be the second oldest (but not by much), Mark I.

Same one I got.

[JCheungPhoto]

The MkI us normally hailed to be as a very iffy lens, the mkII is only $50 more

[rdsmith3]

Here is one more (again not a duck) with the lens all the way at 200 with a 1.4x tc, giving an effective focal length of 280 mm. f/5 ISO 800

http://rdsmith3.smugmug.com/photos/266389003_3g6y2-M.jpg

[Popper]

from a shoot today....

70mm @ 2.8

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/LoKyBuckeye/Misc/Strings3.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

which combination would you choose?

EF 24-70L + Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro MkII

or

EF 24-105L + EF 70-200 f2.8L non-IS

[philthejuggler]

which combination would you choose?

EF 24-70L + Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro MkII

or

EF 24-105L + EF 70-200 f2.8L non-IS


The latter!

[JCheungPhoto]

sorta my thinking based on nicer build

[GSH]

which combination would you choose?

EF 24-70L + Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro MkII

or

EF 24-105L + EF 70-200 f2.8L non-IS

Just to be awkward i have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 24-105L.

Works quite nicely for me ;)

[JCheungPhoto]

Just to be awkward i have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 24-105L.

Works quite nicely for me ;)

are you talking about the new mkII macro?

[JCheungPhoto]

im thinking ill use that combo, the sigma 70-200 MkII and 24-105L + 17-40L

[funhouse69]

im thinking ill use that combo, the sigma 70-200 MkII and 24-105L + 17-40L


I just picked up the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII and I have to say it is pretty impressive. I would have went with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS but it is double the price. I know it is probably well worth the money and I am still considering it as the Sigma is a pretty heavy lens as is the Canon.

I've heard some mention that the auto focus is a little slow but I think it is very close to the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS but I have had it hunt a few times in what I would consider decent light. I'm still not 100% sure I am going to keep it.

I will post some pics when I get a chance

[kevinmcdade]

I've had my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII for about a month now. I was also in a situation where I debated between the Canon version but decided to save a few bucks. I love my Sigma! It has hunted a couple of times in good light but so did my Canon 70-300 USM IS, which my Sigma replaced, and my Canon 28-135 USM IS. IMO, the autofocus is just as fast as the USM. I actually find myself with WAY more "keepers" than I had with my previous telephoto zoom. The lens felt heavy to me for about the first 10 minutes of use. I find myself using my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII every chance I get.

Autofocus AI Servo had no problems tracking this action that I shot yesterday:

[GSH]

are you talking about the new mkII macro?

Nope. I have the EX DG without the "macro" rubbish ;)

[JCheungPhoto]

Thanks Kevin and Funhouse, I'm glad the sigma works well, by getting the 24-105 kit lens with the sigma 70-200 mkII I can save enough to get the 17-40L plus change (I'm not using the telephoto as a sports lens as much, it's more or less going to be a tigher portrait lens)

[dann6968]

Is there a difference between the DG and non- DG version of this lens? Also, did all versions come with HSM?

[dann6968]

Anyone?

[Rhinotherunt]

Is there a difference between the DG and non- DG version of this lens? Also, did all versions come with HSM?
Per Sigma Website:

Sigma LENS TECHNOLOGY

ASP (Aspherical Lens)
The aspherical lens complex allows freedom of design, improved performance, a reduced number of component lenses and a compact size.

APO (APO Lens)
In order to attain the highest quality images, the APO lens has been made using special low-dispersion (SLD) glass and is designed to minimize color aberration.

OS (Optical Stabilizer) Function
This function utilizes a built-in mechanism that compensates for camera shake. It dramatically expands photographic possibilities by alleviating camera movement when shooting by hand held camera.

HSM (Hyper-Sonic Motor)
This lens uses a motor driven by ultrasonic waves to provide a quiet, high speed AF.
RF (Rear Focus)
This lens is equipped with a system that moves the rear lens group for highspeed , silent focusing.

IF (Inner Focus)
To ensure stability in focusing, this lens moves the inner lens group or groups without changing the lens' physical length.

Conv (APO Teleconverter EX)
This lens can be used with the APO Teleconverter EX. It can increase the focal length and will interface with the camera's AE (automatic exposure) function.

EX (EX Lens)
The exterior of this lens is EX-finished to denote the superior build and optical quality, and to enhance its appearance.

DG (DG Lens)
These are large-aperture lenses with wide angles and short minimum focusing distances. With an abundance of peripheral illumination, they are ideal lenses for Digital SLR Cameras whilst retaining suitability for traditional 35mm SLRs.

DC (DC Lens)
These are special lenses designed so that the image circle matches the smaller size of the image sensor of most digital SLR cameras. Their specialized design gives these lenses the ideal properties for digital cameras, the compact and lightweight construction is an added bonus ! including compact and lightweight construction.

I love my Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX DG HSM!
http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/272982043_nvmys-O.jpghttp://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/272982119_ZT4Gg-O.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

nice shots, I totally mixed up the abrev. in my last posted [deleted] but DG is for film + digital mounts vs. DC which is crop sensor mount only.

[GSH]

Is there a difference between the DG and non- DG version of this lens? Also, did all versions come with HSM?

DG v Non DG. Sigma will tell you there is, but i have yet to see a difference between DG and non DG version of any of their lenses.

As for HSM i believe all the 70-200 EX lenses have it.

[bluebomberx]

Geoff is correct about all versions of the 70-200 EX having HSM focusing. I shot both of these off a monopod this weekend with the non-DG version, aka EX APO IF HSM. I wish I had bumped my ISO for the first one. Didn't need it for the second, but I forgot to change it back. D'oh! It's a good thing that ISO 400 on a 5D is comparable to ISO 100 on a 10D :D

Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2091/2390196235_fca1dd3d51_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2390196235/)

Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 159 mm
ISO Speed: 400
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2156/2390978920_2a8946a3a6_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2390978920/)

[LucyRoberts]

I posted this in the WTB section but not a lot of people look there, so I figured I'd give it a shot here also.

I'm looking to buy a copy of this lens if anyone is thinking of selling!
Thanks!

[bluebomberx]

I posted this in the WTB section but not a lot of people look there, so I figured I'd give it a shot here also.

I'm looking to buy a copy of this lens if anyone is thinking of selling!
Thanks!

Try http://www.keh.com. They have a non-DG and a DG version in stock. Very good retailer.

[LucyRoberts]

Try http://www.keh.com. They have a non-DG and a DG version in stock. Very good retailer.
Thank you! I'll keep that in mind if I get no bites here.

[Rhinotherunt]

Wide open @ 200mm

http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/279492604_nxcwx-O.jpg

[MT Stringer]

Caleb rounding third. :D Shot through the fence.
40D w/70-200 @ 200mm
ISO 250
1/1250 @ f/3.2
Mike

[Rhinotherunt]

Caleb rounding third. :D Shot through the fence.
40D w/70-200 @ 200mm
ISO 250
1/1250 @ f/3.2
Mike
Mike, I LOVE the determination you captured in both faces!!!

[MT Stringer]

Thanks. He's got short legs! Even for a four yr. old.
Mike

[Rhinotherunt]

Thanks. He's got short legs! Even for a four yr. old.
Mike
Nothing wrong with that... RUDY, RUDY, RUDY! :)

I am short too... we are just tougher. ;)

[LucyRoberts]

You guys are killing me here!!! :p

[bluebomberx]

More fuel for the fire... :lol:

f/3.2 at 159mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2363/2353562758_39aa9e098e.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2353562758/)
f/3.5 at 200mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2175/2402275990_c98b47ed79_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2402275990/)
f/6.3 at 135mm
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2285/2346258612_87bbfa447f_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2346258612/)

[LucyRoberts]

More fuel for the fire... :lol:

f/3.2 at 159mm

f/3.5 at 200mm

f/6.3 at 135mm



So not nice. :mad: :lol:

[Popper]

I love my 2.8... from a shoot I did a few weeks ago....

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk269/SKBUCKEYE/IMG_5993.jpg

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk269/SKBUCKEYE/IMG_5985.jpg

[LucyRoberts]

I love my 2.8... from a shoot I did a few weeks ago....

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk269/SKBUCKEYE/IMG_5993.jpg

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk269/SKBUCKEYE/IMG_5985.jpg


Great! Now I not only want the lens, but I'm hungry too! :lol:

Those are amazing!

[caiguar]

I had this lens last year. It is the ONLY lens I regret selling. I used the canon 70-200 f/4 that a friend has and, boy do I miss my lens. I am going to buy it again eventually. I just don't have the funds atm, here a pic I took with it.

http://www.35mme.com/photos/279260257_YvdHF-L.jpg

[Popper]

Great! Now I not only want the lens, but I'm hungry too! :lol:


:D sorry!

[Yel00tlr]

Here is a random shot from the other evening.....
http://photokurt.com/images/20080415073140_railroad.jpg

[JBerlotti]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/jberlotti/AlisonBella6.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/jberlotti/AlisonBella4.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

Is the sigma macro MkII fairly sharp at f2.8? f3.2?

[_aravena]

TO help answer, a few shots at F2.8. I wanted some good DOF. The fans kept coming in too sharp...

http://a524.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/103/l_7f5be328e04b6a571d527d94f285e99b.jpg

http://a851.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/67/l_52fff49dd553847e76a0a91034c649aa.jpg

http://a680.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/29/l_92254572e0ff65df9b311beea87e4fbf.jpg

http://a459.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/13/l_2b5003b8bb4512fe47687e04c5847b8a.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

does the mkII macro really fix the problems of the mkI macro?

[bluebomberx]

What are the problems of the Mark I macro? I'd also like to add that my older non-DG is quite flare prone. How are the newer models or even others' original non-DG models? For instance, I was shooting in to a sunset this evening. The sun was well below the horizon, but the lens still flared up badly. Other's have the same experience?

[LucyRoberts]

Not technically the best photo but I just got the MkII version yesterday and got to take it out today. Love it so far!


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/2424009249_32a26df289_b.jpg

[aCiD99]

Moar:
http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/wild/large/wild3.jpg

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/wild/large/wild2.jpg

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/automotive/large/naias1.jpg

http://www.bradgoldring.com/images/photography/automotive/large/naias5.jpg