Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM

[JCheungPhoto]

I think people should note which version of lens they used for their shots

[HarleyQuinn]

MkII version...


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2425728587_750654b316_b.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

That is nice, where most of the shots like that? As in was it that sharp consistantly?

[HarleyQuinn]

That is nice, where most of the shots like that? As in was it that sharp consistantly?
I just got the lens two days ago..... I've shot off about 200 shots so far and they've all been incredibly tack sharp. There were a few duds that were my fault though. :)

Here is one SOOC... no sharpening at all. These were all handheld also.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2258/2425838507_bded154599_b.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

perfect, thanks alot

[DStanic]

I hate you guys. I was thinking this lens would be perfect to get because of the f2.8 and those pics are quickly making me forget about the nicely priced 70-200 f/4L...

[HarleyQuinn]

I hate you guys. I was thinking this lens would be perfect to get because of the f2.8 and those pics are quickly making me forget about the nicely priced 70-200 f/4L...
Sorry man...it's hell. It took me a year to get over my lust for the Canon name and just be happy with a good lens. Not that the f4 isn't a GREAT lens, but I was trying to wait and save for the 2.8L. I realize now how stupid that was.

[aCiD99]

I think people should note which version of lens they used for their shots

Or we should just get separate threads...

[JCheungPhoto]

Or we should just get separate threads...

that's true

[DanC922]

Wow, I'm very impressed with this lens. I was planning on getting the Canon f/4 soon, but I think I might be swayed to heavily consider the Sigma.

Does anyone have some examples and/or experience (good or bad) shooting in low light wide open with the Sigma?

[deci]

Ditto DanC's question - Could save me hellofalot of cash;)

[HarleyQuinn]

OK. The lighting inmy living room is crap right now. Natural eastern light shining through bamboo shades.

For testing SOOC... Mk II version on tripod.
Camera:Canon EOS 30D (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_30d/)Exposure:0.025 sec (1/40)Aperture:f/2.8Focal Length:110 mmISO Speed:500Exposure Bias:0/3 EVFlash:Flash did not fire

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2428811105_1464f4fc10_b.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

colors seem fairly well rendered, and I like the depth of field with that f/2.8 aperture (one of the things I need since I'm going to use it for portraits over canon's f/4 at only a slightly lower price)

[DStanic]

So where are some good places to buy online, new or used? Any good ones for shipping to Canada?

[JCheungPhoto]

BH photo for new
Keh for used =)

[DanC922]

OK. The lighting inmy living room is crap right now. Natural eastern light shining through bamboo shades.

For testing SOOC... Mk II version on tripod.
Camera:Canon EOS 30D (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos_30d/)Exposure:0.025 sec (1/40)Aperture:f/2.8Focal Length:110 mmISO Speed:500Exposure Bias:0/3 EVFlash:Flash did not fire

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2428811105_1464f4fc10_b.jpg

Thanks. :)

Anyone else have some low light wide open shots?

[MT Stringer]

Night shots at the ball park with the grand kids (Angelo and Chris).

30D w/70-200 f/2.8

ISO 3200 at f/2.8
1/500 (first pic)
1/320 (2nd pic) Shot through the fence.

Mike

[deci]

Thanks Lucy + Mike, I think you just saved me a few quid :D I'm fairly happy with the two Siggies I got (10-20, 24-70}, looks like I'm going for triplets now.

[HarleyQuinn]

Thanks Lucy + Mike, I think you just saved me a few quid :D I'm fairly happy with the two Siggies I got (10-20, 24-70}, looks like I'm going for triplets now.


Same set up I have and love them all! Can't beat the price and the quality. Good luck with it.

[deci]

Damn, just seen some Tammy 70-200 2.8 samples - now I'm really confused, 3 choices,one with IS and two at relatively bargain prices Oh woe is me :cry:

[questionmark]

does anyone have any 100% crops of the macro II version at f/2.8, preferably in low light?

[JCheungPhoto]

I'd like to see that

[kevinmcdade]

I love this lens more and more everytime I use it!!! Do any other users of this lens ever get asked why they chose this lens over the Canon? I was asked that question by another photo enthusiast while I was at this event. It kind of puzzled me...

[JCheungPhoto]

great pictures, it looks like #1 was taken with strobes or a flash xD

[kevinmcdade]

great pictures, it looks like #1 was taken with strobes or a flash xD

Thanks! Number 1 was taken after the sun went down. I used my 580 EX II on camera, TTL for that shot. It was shot at f/2.8, 200ss, ISO 800, shutter priority, focal length 154mm, RAW. I actually overexposed it by 1 full stop which is something that I never tried at this same venue. I really like the results. This is something I'll have to do until I can get enough funds to get a 40D with more useable ISO 1600.

[JCheungPhoto]

looks you did a pretty good job

[chris_arnet]

Would anybody be so kind as to send me pics and 100% crops of the first version wide open?

I cant decide between that or the 70-200 f/4 L..............

[JCheungPhoto]

The first version of the macro? I think it's been discontinued, if you don't get the macro version the EX DG APO HSM is really good

[chris_arnet]

The first version of the macro? I think it's been discontinued, if you don't get the macro version the EX DG APO HSM is really good

Thats what I meant, the non-macro version.

[Layston]

For the record there are 4 versions:
1. 70-200 EX APO HSM
2. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM
3. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM Macro
4. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM Macro II

I have the very first non-dg non-macro version.

[JCheungPhoto]

from what I've heard, the second version is comperable to the EF 70-200 f2.8 non-IS

[chris_arnet]

For the record there are 4 versions:
1. 70-200 EX APO HSM
2. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM
3. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM Macro
4. 70-200 DG EX APO HSM Macro II

I have the very first non-dg non-macro version.

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20298908.html?searchinfo=sigma%2070-200&item_no=1

This is the one im looking at ordering. I cant decide between the Canon f/4 or the sigma

[JCheungPhoto]

it looks like the macro version, which I hear is fairly soft until stopped down to f5.6

[chris_arnet]

Oh. Well then.... I may be getting the Canon. If its soft at 2.8 then the extra stop doesnt do me much good. And if its still soft at f/4, then why not get a razor sharp Canon for $100 less?

[DStanic]

So does the APO-DG non-macro have the best IQ? I read that the macro version can focus closer than Canon and Nikon 70-200s. The Tamron 75-300 that I just sold had a min focus distance of 51", which is similar to the Canons and sometimes I wished I was able to focus closer, I think the macro version might be better for me?

[JCheungPhoto]

If you want the macro feature, then go with the MkII not the original macro version. If you don't mind not having a macro option, then the EX DG APO model can be had for similar to the canon f/4 and is fairly sharp up to f2.8 and very nice at f/4 and above

[aCiD99]

it looks like the macro version, which I hear is fairly soft until stopped down to f5.6

That's silly talk, and admittedly hearsay.

Taken yesterday, 1/60th @ 114mm handheld, ISO400.

And I have many more better examples, just not on this comp atm.

[aCiD99]

Pic 1: f/3.5, 1/640th, 87mm, ISO250, handheld

Pic 2: f/2.8, 1/1000, 70mm, ISO250, handheld

All 100% crops.

[kevinmcdade]

Oh. Well then.... I may be getting the Canon. If its soft at 2.8 then the extra stop doesnt do me much good. And if its still soft at f/4, then why not get a razor sharp Canon for $100 less?

I had the Canon f/4 that I returned and bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 II. I need and use that extra stop regularly. Most of my shots with my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 are wide open. I have not experienced any softness and have posted many samples in this thread. If you don't need the extra stop and always shoot in good light, save yourself some money and get the Canon 70-200 f/4 which is an excellent choice. Or you could get the Sigma which you can always step down but you can never open the aperature more on the Canon 70-200 f/4.

[JCheungPhoto]

well...I stand corrected

[bluebomberx]

I shot these Saturday evening using a monopod with the first incarnation of the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM.

Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.01 sec (1/100)
Aperture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 400
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/2445926600_a787b26b30_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2445926600/)

Camera: Canon EOS 5D
Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 200 mm
ISO Speed: 400
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2444919048_363fc4d2e0_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2444919048/in/photostream/)

[turbodude]

i love this lens....

http://www.localitesvegas.com/uploads/photos/829/rehabopening4_27-157.jpg

shot at f/5.6

[_aravena]

^Ya sure it's the lens? ;)

[JCheungPhoto]

*cough* xD

[DanC922]

I just ordered one. :)

I'll keep myself from looking at my bank account for a couple weeks now. :p

[shima]

This is the non macro version of the sigma 70-200 f2.8 that I own. I took this photo in February of this year on my Rebel XTi body:

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/258105828_9wVE3-M.jpg

[JCheungPhoto]

nice capture, easily the best lens of the group

[DanC922]

As required, duck pictures were the first taken with my new 70-200 II. :p

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Danc922/IMG_8089.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Danc922/IMG_8131.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a122/Danc922/IMG_8140.jpg

[Tinh Ngo]

i'm still wondering about this also, does the apo marco or the non marco version has a sharpness different or no? Is there any test on wihch is more sharper or perform better?

does anyone have the sigma apo marco version I sample they can post?

[Tinh Ngo]

anyone?

[aCiD99]

does anyone have the sigma apo marco version I sample they can post?

Do you mean DG EX Macro? If so, all of my posts (of which there are several) are all from that version.

[Tinh Ngo]

yea DG MACRO Version I not II , i was wondering out of all the version which one is the sharpest or there all the same? I was thinking about getting one for sports and outdoor potrait, but i'm thinking because i still got my 85 1.8

[turbodude]

i have the original and its fantastic

[DStanic]

yea DG MACRO Version I not II , i was wondering out of all the version which one is the sharpest or there all the same? I was thinking about getting one for sports and outdoor potrait, but i'm thinking because i still got my 85 1.8

That's the version I have. Just haven't had time to go out and take pics yet. I'll post some as soon as I can.

[Tinh Ngo]

Please post asap the original APO or APO MARCO? I realize a few ppls have problem with APO MACRO version and sent it back for calibration

[DStanic]

With the macro I, it's definatly a bit soft f/2.8 at 100-200mm. But this isn't really a focusing problem.. is there anything they can actually do about that? 200mm at f/4 is more acceptable and f/8 is quite sharp.

[Tinh Ngo]

I dont really know i havent sent anything in for calibration before so yea, i'm just reading a lot of post about it so yea. suck that some are soft at 2.8 so important for potrait >.<

[DStanic]

Here's a few shots done at 200mm f/2.8, f/4, and f8. I think the f/8 shot wasn't quite steady on the tripod. I did shoot in Av mode, so perhaps it's my camera (or me) screwing up, but below f/4 the shots are usually darker. ???

Shooting at a shorter focal length f/2.8 is much more usable.

F/2.8 CLICK HERE FOR FULL SIZE TO PIXEL PEEP (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/2522281249_ca96ffc0eb_o.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/2522281249_16dba8503c_b.jpg


F/4 nice and sharp CLICK FOR FULL SIZE (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2522283899_8b937a84e4_o.jpg)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2522283899_85a3c7e13b_b.jpg


F/8 (I think a bit of camera shake) Click for FULL SIZE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/38826131@N00/2523109034/sizes/o/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2202/2523109034_3b3c67cdf8_b.jpg

[Tinh Ngo]

f4 seem pretty good but f2.8 and f8 hmmm.. which version is this DG APO or MARCO I or II? I Heard the 2nd version and the II is the best out of all of them.

[whaase]

Is the HSM as fast as the USM?

[angryhampster]

Is the HSM as fast as the USM?



Damn near it.

[DStanic]

f4 seem pretty good but f2.8 and f8 hmmm.. which version is this DG APO or MARCO I or II? I Heard the 2nd version and the II is the best out of all of them.

This is the macro I, and f/8 was 1/30 or something there might have been some camera shake. It's usually sharper/better than f4. F/2.8 is not bad 70-100mm.

[TopGear1Ds]

thats disappointing enough at 2.8 to make the 2.8L with the extra money.. can anyone with a macro II post a similar series of test shots?

I'm seriously thinking about getting the marco II, but not if it looks like crap at 200mm and f/2.8

[The Sloan Ranger]

All 6 photos at 2.8
#1-4 at 200mm
#5 at 70mm
#6 at 93mm

All taken with Sigma 70-200 Macro I.

While I think sharpness is better at shorter FL's, I am also very pleased with my results at 200mm. Focus is quick and precise. I have no experience with any of the Canon 70-200's, so I cannot give any comparisons.


http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p432317769-5.jpg

http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p529375124-4.jpg

http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p260611575-5.jpg

http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p45082288-5.jpg

http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p121701827-4.jpg

http://shaunsloan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p528326304-4.jpg

[Tinh Ngo]

was there any touchup done to it like sharpening,contrast,brightness? can you post original with exif? Thats a really GREAT copy at f2.8 and thast the macro I correct?

[The Sloan Ranger]

I always shoot in Raw, so yes, there was post processing on the images. Sorry, the original is gone, I don't keep my original raw files. Exif should be attached to the image. I don't remember my exact PP settings but they were probably pretty close to the following...

PP'ing done in DPP
Cropped
Adjust Exposure to taste
White Balance set to 5300K
Autumn Hues picture style
Contrast +1
Color Tone -1
Saturation +1
Sharpening 5 or 6
No noise reduction on these images as ISO was at 100.

Images captured in AI Servo with focus set to * button. Hope this helps.

Edit: Yes, this is the Macro I version.

[Tinh Ngo]

can you take some pictures at f2.8 - f4 unprocess one that would be great, i'm looking at this version and an old one so yea.

[DStanic]

can you take some pictures at f2.8 - f4 unprocess one that would be great, i'm looking at this version and an old one so yea.

And could you post 100% crops of them? Small pictures always look better until you zoom in. You very well may have a much sharper copy then I do though.

[The Sloan Ranger]

I personally don't pixel peep as I think 100% crops are overrated and I tend to get disgusted with what I see at 100% (especially an unprocessed Raw image which requires processing).

However, I'll try to take a few shots this week. I will shoot them in raw and set all parameters in DPP to zero, then convert to JPEG at level 10.

Please note that it might take me a while as the job, wife and kids tend to get in the way of my photography. Family issues aside, I have an upcoming disney vacation next week that I need to pack for...With all that said, I guess it might take a few days before I can get something of substance together...But I will. If not this week, then I'm afraid it will be after my vacation.

[Tinh Ngo]

that will be nice, sometihng is better than nothing, how is your marco version I on focusing and stuff, any issue?

[bluebomberx]

All taken with a Canon 5D and Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM - the non-macro for those who will ask anyway :lol:

126mm at f/3.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2390/2523047982_b2afc28818_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2523047982/)

135mm at f/2.8
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/2514155431_7c3ed18eef_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2514155431/)

126mm at f/4.5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2493869434_b09db70156_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2493869434/)

88mm at f/13
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2252/2503747107_5d4be402be_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2503747107/)

[aCiD99]

THOSE ARE STUNNING ^^^^^^^


(And I NEVER post in all caps.)

[Rhinotherunt]

http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/302356436_HPmSR-O.jpg
http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/302356735_2dVit-O.jpg
http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/302356896_JAorv-O.jpg
http://Ryan-McGill.smugmug.com/photos/302357145_pUp8H-O.jpg

[Tinh Ngo]

what version was that?

[Coppatop85]

SO, there are 4 verisons of this lens, which is the sharpest? I don't really care about macro, I'd rather have a dedicated macro lens that a so-so one. There are 4 versions and I am confused here, is the newest MKII with macro the sharpest? Or the MKI APO DG non macro the sharpest?

I can't decide between this lens, and the canon f/4 IS.

[Layston]

From what I've read:
APO non-DG non-macro (version 1) - very sharp across all focal lengths but may show some ghosting on digital
APO DG non-macro (version 2) - very sharp across all focal lengths and solves the digital ghosting
APO DG Macro (version 3) - sharpest at 70mm, not as sharp as the non-macro at 200mm
APO DG Macro II (version 4) - fixes the sharpness issues at 200mm that the version 3 lens had, however it may be slightly softer at 70mm than the non-macro

THIS IS ALL FROM READING. I do not have personal experience to back this up. I have the original version and it is perfectly fine in my opinion. All you gain with the macro versions is closer focusing which in turn leads to greater possible magnification. I've rarely felt that I wanted closer focusing with my original version and when I do, I pull out my Tokina 100mm macro.

To compare to the Canon F/4L IS, I've read that the Canon 70-200 F/4L lenses (both IS and non) are the sharpest zooms that canon makes. If sharpness is your goal, these are considered top notch, plus you get weather sealing and IS. However, if you need f/2.8 for sports etc well F/4 will never be F/2.8 :)

[Tinh Ngo]

great post, so you have the 2nd version apo non macro correct? any test sample images you can post?

[DStanic]

Tihh Ngo - Is there a specific reason for why you want to buy one of these lenses?

After buying mine, and using it, after what people say with telephotos etc.. here are my issues:

f/2.8 (non-IS) vs F/4L and F4 IS

{b]2.8[/b] PROS and CONS
-is fast, which is great for what you are shooting (if it is sports, or something moving in low light that you need the faster shutter speed then f/4 can give you in the same lighting condition.) **HOWEVER** this does not mean it's fast enough for you to handhold better than a F4 IS!
-will give you more bokeh (more background blur) however with a telephoto you get so much of it anyways, F4 is still quite nice IMO.
-shooting at 200mm(for example) at 2.8 you have VERY shallow DOF. You have to NAIL THE FOCUS precisely, or something else will be in focus that you don't want. For example if you are shooting a cat, you have to get they eyes in focus, you might accidentally get the noise instead.

The F4 IS has a 4 stop image stabilizer, so I do beleive you can handhold it better than a non-IS 2.8 lens. You will get less camera shake, but more motion blur since you are still limited to f/4 shutter speeds. Again I think this is an issue depending on what you shoot.

F4 non-IS should be able to get plenty high shutter speeds if you just plan to use it outdoors. If it's dark out, you should use a tripod anyways.

[Layston]

Actually I have VERSION 1. The only issues I had was when I first got it, it wasn't reporting the focal length correctly in the EXIF info and it was slightly back-focusing. I sent it to Sigma for an estimate for repair and they fixed it for FREE. Rechipping and recalibrating it, and I was the 3rd owner. I really have to commend Sigma, far more than I expected. Now the lens is sharp and I love it. I paid $750 for it and a Sigma 2X TC so I think I got a bargain :)

[Tinh Ngo]

Yea been using a canon one at my photography class but not the sigma, i was looking for a sports lens and potrait and i really want to experiments and not to spend so much so yea. I heard canon f4 is the way to go instead of the sigma but i love the sigma 2.8 its very useful at point but nailing a good copy can be hard

[Layston]

I'd disagree with that statement about a "good copy". I have found that 90+% of the time when I think a lens isn't working right it's me, I've missed focus, I didn't have focus, I moved, etc etc. With my Sigma, I decided to send it for calibration because

a) I was the 3rd owner and who knows what happened to it before me
b) It was reporting the wrong focal length and I wanted to know if that could be fixed
c) It was mildly back-focusing. This was only an issue at f/2.8 at close range and something I could have lived with.

With a FREE calibration, it's now fantastic. Even if I bought it new and it wasn't focusing correctly it would have been under warranty and I would have no problem sending it in for calibration. Although I agree that lenses should be great from the factory, there are too many factors that make this impossible. Basically tolerances and tolerance stack up can lead to combinations that just don't work. Imagine a lens within calibration spec that is within +/- 0.5in but at the high side +0.5 in. Now you have a camera that focuses within spec of +/- 0.5in but at the low side -0.5in. Now the focus of the combination will be a total of 1in off where it ideally would be. In terms of shooting someone's face, that would mean if your focus landed on the nose instead of the eyes, the ears would be out of focus. I think measurebating and listening to "bad copy" rumors make too many people think they have a problem when it's within the realm of acceptability.

Anyway, "nailing a good copy" is the least of my concerns...getting the camera to see what I see is far more of a challenge.

[goodnameuk]

hiya.

I had my MK3 lens over heat today, Focus stopped working for hours then came back. Manual and auto focus didn't work.

Does this sound right? I've heard over heating can be a problem in extreme heat but a May day in the UK, Not really that extreme, i was in AI servo mode tho.

I brought the lens monday, phoned shop, they said they will replace no problem if its found not to be working, think is, it is now.

Please help

Cheers

Lee

[DStanic]

hiya.

I had my MK3 lens over heat today, Focus stopped working for hours then came back. Manual and auto focus didn't work.

Does this sound right? I've heard over heating can be a problem in extreme heat but a May day in the UK, Not really that extreme, i was in AI servo mode tho.

I brought the lens monday, phoned shop, they said they will replace no problem if its found not to be working, think is, it is now.

Please help

Cheers

Lee

I would get another copy. Even if that means getting a full refund if they don't want to do an exchange or something.

[DStanic]

I would like to give a little update on my "soft 70-200 macro 1" issue.

I updated the firmware on my XTi to the lastest version. I know the update is not suppose to do much other then add info for 2 lenses and an extra language, but I think it's possible my camera might be focusing at f/2.8 200mm better. ??? Either that or I'm shooting better somehow.

I'll keep you posted!

[goodnameuk]

Yeah what i was thinking. I want to know i can rely on this lens, and thing a lens that cost as much as it does i should be able to shot for more than an hour without 4 hours for it to cool down.

Cheers

[aCiD99]

Yeah what i was thinking. I want to know i can rely on this lens, and thing a lens that cost as much as it does i should be able to shot for more than an hour without 4 hours for it to cool down.

Cheers

Yea, that's definitely odd.

I beat the hell outta mine, AI servo, in the extreme sun for hours in dusty environments, shooting 5fps like a madman. It's never even hesitated once.

[Popper]

Yea, that's definitely odd.

I beat the hell outta mine, AI servo, in the extreme sun for hours in dusty environments, shooting 5fps like a madman. It's never even hesitated once.

same with mine... I use it outside in hot, humid conditions all the time and I've never had any problems. I just had it out at the beach today.... 94 degrees, HOT and in direct sun most of the afternoon with no issues....

[Tinh Ngo]

keep posting guys =]

[goodnameuk]

Hiya,

Right just been to the shop, Jessops, And they xchanged it without question on the spot for a new one. 10 out of 10.

I will get out and use it and get back to you.

Cheers

Lee

[turbodude]

i have version 1 and its the beezneez, works well on my 30d and works even better on my 40d

[bluebomberx]

I'm forcing myself to use this lens more and more to get a handle on using it in conjunction with my 24-70L as my pj kit. I'd still love to have an L, but it's doing the job ;)

Canon 5D - Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM , 146mm at f/7.1
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3082/2553754938_8cc5414371_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2553754938/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2553226999_b68a6aa08d_b.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2553226999/)

[john.hem]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Officer.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Flag.jpg

John

[caiguar]

hey everyone, just wanted to drop in to tell you guys that I joined the ranks of the sigma 2.8 again. After selling the copy I had of this lens, The first macro and switching to a canon f4 L. I am back to the sigma, mainly for the 2.8, f4 was not cutting it for me anymore, the f4 is a wonderful lens, an L is an L but this lens is just as good.

I got myself a first a version of this lens. non-macro non-ex

I will have pics shortly

[turbodude]

i think teh first copy is the sharpest, i love mine...

[Coppatop85]

Can anyone comment on the sharpness of the newest version, I'm highly considering picking one up. Also, what's the magnification ration on the macro?

[caiguar]

I can't say about the newest version. I have had two version of this lens, the first macro version and the first edition(the one I have now.

I don't know if anyone is going to believe me but, I think the first version is the sharpest of the two i've had. Maybe someone can comment on the latest edition, its supposed to fix some of the softness the first macro version had.

[DStanic]

I'm going to shoot a wedding with my macro (first version) and then maybe sell/trade it towards a Canon F/4L. While I'm sure that the other version are great (some spectacular pics on here) after 130mm or so f/2.8 is useless, just way too soft and "dark". At F4 its ok and F8 it's great, but that's not good enough reason to haul around this lens. The F4L is shorter, and much lighter, and with the extra money I can pocket I can put towards another lens. So far I just don't find I have have that much use for f/2.8 in a telephoto anyways. In low light, it doesn't have IS, so flash/tripod is required, and I don't shoot anything that moves fast for the extra shutter speed to be used anyways.

[Geejay]

I posted this one already in the 70-200 f2.8 II thread. Hope no-one minds it turing up here too..

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e316/GeeJayW/Sigma%20Zoom/TakeOffSmall.jpg

Cheers!

[dann6968]

30D, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
f/4.5 1/1600 ISO100

Tofino, BC

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2594882972_c59db98509_b.jpg

[smcclelland]

Some shots from my 70-200 2.8 EX DG APO Macro (Version 3). This lens is tack sharp for me on my 40D.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2160/2545675324_d88292526d_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2580739693_8510463480_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3121/2580740153_3d42116def_o.jpg

[Geejay]

I just shot a duck with my 70-200 f2.8 II...... :)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e316/GeeJayW/Sigma%20Zoom/Duckshoot.jpg

ISO 200, 200mm, 1/500, f2.8
Levels and USM..

[4walls]

I just shot a duck with my 70-200 f2.8 II...... :)
Made me laugh when I read this. Good one.

I am using this lens more and more... love the shallow depth of field. Often I will miss the focus just a little when shooting at f/2.8, but that is my fault. Here is a recent shot at 1/80 sec and F/2.8
http://bp1.blogger.com/_JH2Pz3CLiNY/SGVs6sE8akI/AAAAAAAADHI/LTuMwf4pYPo/s1600/11460_amanda.jpg

[4walls]

Pop quiz!

Question: What does is the best feature of Nikkor lenses than Canon and Sigma (especially Sigma) doesn't do nearly as well?

Answer: Center Pinch snap on lens caps.

I just bought one of these (http://cgi.ebay.com/pro-77mm-snap-on-Canon-24-70-5d-400d-16-35-40d-E-77U_W0QQitemZ350071554492QQihZ022QQcategoryZ79002Q QcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262) from eBay for $9 (Shipping included). I love it and I am gonna get one for every other lens I own.

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/pict/350060533665.jpg (http://cgi.ebay.com/pro-77mm-snap-on-Canon-24-70-5d-400d-16-35-40d-E-77U_W0QQitemZ350071554492QQihZ022QQcategoryZ79002Q QcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262)
This is a replica product, not OEM.

[David Rhodes]

Pop quiz!

Question: What does is the best feature of Nikkor lenses than Canon and Sigma (especially Sigma) doesn't do nearly as well?

Answer: Center Pinch snap on lens caps.

I just bought one of these (http://cgi.ebay.com/pro-77mm-snap-on-Canon-24-70-5d-400d-16-35-40d-E-77U_W0QQitemZ350071554492QQihZ022QQcategoryZ79002Q QcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262) from eBay for $9 (Shipping included). I love it and I am gonna get one for every other lens I own.

http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/pict/350060533665.jpg (http://cgi.ebay.com/pro-77mm-snap-on-Canon-24-70-5d-400d-16-35-40d-E-77U_W0QQitemZ350071554492QQihZ022QQcategoryZ79002Q QcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262)

Gastown photo carries these in Vancouver

[4walls]

Gastown photo carries these in VancouverHow much are they there?

[PullTheTrigger]

Here's one... 1/320, 1600 iso, f/2.8, 200 mm (low light):
The image is too soft and a bit distorted

[_aravena]

??

Pretty bad when you manage to quote something you have to go back several pages for...

[4walls]

??
Pretty bad when you manage to quote something you have to go back several pages for...

Try clicking on the http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1257716#post1257716). That will take you straight to the quoted post. It doesn't matter whether it is one page back or 28.

[_aravena]

I know...but it was from the first page from 2 years ago.

[john.hem]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/3.jpg

John

[anton_rod]

http://urbeatz.com/kofio.jpg

[twofruitz]

Here are some headshots I did for a client.

1/1250, f3.5, Canon 40d, ISO400, at 146mm.

Front and Side Profile!

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/IMG_7529.jpg

http://www.matthewbreenphotography.com/upload/IMG_7531.jpg

[gangreen]

I'm not sure if this is too late to help, but......I would not give up my 2.8 for anything except a 70-200 2.8 IS. :)

http://projectgangreen.smugmug.com/photos/348732564_nZXBn-M.jpg
http://projectgangreen.smugmug.com/photos/348732572_r6Ds8-M.jpg
http://projectgangreen.smugmug.com/photos/348732582_jcs4G-M.jpg
http://projectgangreen.smugmug.com/photos/301442377_ipok6-M.jpg
http://projectgangreen.smugmug.com/photos/347694442_UefMP-M.jpg

[ceegee]

The bird shots and butterfly shots are spectacular. I'm waiting (not so patiently) for my Sigma to arrive in the mail; it should be here tomorrow. Photos like this make the wait so much harder ...! Keep them coming.

[twofruitz]

Great photos Gangreen! :D


Btw, you Americans have VERY ugly cars :D

[Rhinotherunt]

Who ever said this lens does not deliver is CRAZY!
http://www.trmdigitalimaging.net/photos/388645846_Jnzfi-O.jpg

http://www.trmdigitalimaging.net/photos/388644934_rCGnj-O.jpg

http://www.trmdigitalimaging.net/photos/388644165_PwebH-O.jpg

[ashleynaugust]

Great shots! I'm convinced to give this lens a try.

I have a question though-I know very little about Macro photography, is there any benefit to buying the macro lens if you are not shooting macro? Would it be a good thing to have for better focusing, sports, or portraits, or the benefit only applies to macro shooting specifically?

[Layston]

Any zoom lens is not a true macro lens. True macro is 1:1 reproduction (or better). That is to say a 10mm object gets projected onto the sensor and is 10mm in size on the sensor.

With the macro version of this lens (either of the macro versions) they have done some optical trickery to allow you to focus closer than the older non macro versions. As a result, the maximum magnification increases as well, however you still don't get to 1:1.

I have the original non-macro, non-DG version of this lens. I have from time to time been known to throw on my Kenko extension tubes for some fun, but honestly with a minimum focus distance of around 5 feet (anything closer than 5 feet can't get focused on) I have rarely had a problem.

The only time I can think of that this was a problem for me was one day when I was at a zoo with my wife and daughter and we were inside a barn that was a petting area for the kids and I couldn't back up far enough to get my daughter and the goat in focus. So I slapped on my 24-70. I'm sure if I had been using the macro version this would not have been a problem. However people have reported that the original macro was a little softer at 200mm than the non-macro. The new Macro II is supposed to correct for that softness at 200mm.

[bluebomberx]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2925366812_2426c0c06c.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/2926985554_33437449ca.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2925304385_eaeeee6bc0.jpg

[DStanic]

Great shots! I'm convinced to give this lens a try.

I have a question though-I know very little about Macro photography, is there any benefit to buying the macro lens if you are not shooting macro? Would it be a good thing to have for better focusing, sports, or portraits, or the benefit only applies to macro shooting specifically?

Just stay away from the original 70-200 macro and you should be fine. The old Sigmas look incredibly sharp, as well as the new macro II. I think I will be selling my 70-200 macro when I'm done with it (when winter comes) and be getting a Canon 70-200 f/4L (also because I want a smaller and LIGHER lens).

[ashleynaugust]

Thanks! I took your advice and just got mine in, I didn't get macro. I think I got a good copy, but have yet to see a duck to shoot. Trying my luck at a H.S. football game tonight with it, I hope I'll have something postworthy soon. =)

[aeonnemesis]

shot on an overcast day, my hands are also a little shakey hence the ISO400 and faster shutter speed..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3004/2953346553_12328e9060_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2910951401_4288d5dc08_b.jpg

[Coppatop85]

I had a copy of this lens, and it had bad front-focusing issues. I sold it and bought the canon version.

[DStanic]

Well I have sold my 70-200 f/2.8 macro (the soft version) and got my Canon 70-200 f/4L. I can't speak of the older Sigma versions or the newer macro II, but the Canon is clearly better than the one I had. Initially I thought about just getting a different Sigma f/2.8 lens, but I really didn't like lugging all that weight around (and not having IS to be worthwhile), hopefully they'll make a 70-200 f/2.8 OS lens sometime and it will be an affordable alternative to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

[DStanic]

I just got rid of my SIgma 70-200 f/2.8 and replaced it with Canon 70-200 f/4L. The Sigma was a soft copy, and I really didn't like all that weight. On my trip to Algonquin park this weekend the lighter Canon f/4L was alot of fun to use. I will only ever get a 70-200 f/2.8 if it has IS/OS, for indoor use. :)

[neil_g]

Just stay away from the original 70-200 macro and you should be fine.

thats what mine is.. lovely and sharp.

[Timbuctoo]

I'm suprised they haven't brought out an OS copy of this lens yet!! Probably next on Sigma's list of to do's.

Tim H

[_aravena]

I am too. They better do it soon before I get Canon's version. ;)

Actually I probably would still get Canon's version.

[Jeff]

Here's one of Manhattan Gambler. 1/400sec, f/4, ISO 800, 200mm

[ashleynaugust]

Nice capture? Were you dressed in bright blue?

[john.hem]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Thailand/Bird-Unknown1.jpg

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

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

John

[beironxx]

I want some more :)

[Erich in Az]

I just took this last weekend at the local zoo. I've been VERY happy with my non-macro version and I couldn't beat the price vs. the Canon ;)

I saturated the orange a bit, lowered the exposore a touch and worked the levels a little bit but that was it. I only USM'ed about 8% after resizing for the web. It's very sharp at full rez. (sorry not where I can get 100% crop right now)

http://www.gilaphotos.com/misc/IMG_0501b_flamingo.jpg

[beironxx]

Very nice picture, thank you!!!
So which lens from four versions was this one you took picture?

[Erich in Az]

Very nice picture, thank you!!!
So which lens from four versions was this one you took picture?

Mine is the original non-macro, non-dg that I picked up from Adorama in 8+ condition, although I couldn't even tell it had been used, for $479. I was very nervous about getting the Siggy at first, but real-world shots have really proven itself to me.

[_aravena]

'll match that with some photos I took earlier this month. Forgot about this thread.

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v6/p668579119-4.jpg

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v4/p598379397-4.jpg

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v6/p603450675-4.jpg

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v4/p610363779-4.jpg

Reason for being at Sarasota park thingy was this. Yes, Flamingos everywhere!!!
http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v5/p583925319-4.jpg

http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v4/p928524545-4.jpg

Keep scrolling to see something kinda sad. If you love animals.









http://www.lastshotphotography.com/img/v4/p945424804-4.jpg

[Bobster]

love my 70-200, guy i know thinks my sigma is sharper than a 70-200 IS he borrowed while thinking about buying a zoom
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/103779684.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/103733145.jpg

[GMCPhotographics]

Yup, I sold my Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG (non macro) late last year and it was as sharp than the two Canon 70-200/2.8 IS L's that my 2nd photographers usually tout. I can't see any real world differences between the these lenses apart from the slightly quicker AF in the Canon and the IS unit. What I will say is that the Sigma seems to render more contrasty and vibrant images at 200mm than the Canon.
To be fair though, I think there is more difference between photographers than there is in IQ between these lenses.

[beironxx]

I like this quote Gareth "I think there is more difference between photographers than there is in IQ between these lenses." ;)

Nice portret pictures Bobster!

What would you do? Buy a 2 year old Canon 70-200/2.8 IS L for 1000 eur or go for 2 year old sigma 70-200/2.8 for 500 EUR :D. This is my dilema at the moment ;)

[j.owen]

This is at 178mm f6.3 @ 1/500 100iso

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3232302911_be93f8d9a6_b.jpg

[Grady69]

Which one is better to get the non-macro or the the newer version? Im looking to buy this lens in the next few weeks and would like to know which one is better. Also have been trying to compare this one with the tamron version,but so far i think the sigma is better.
Grady

[Bobster]

the newer focuses faster

[Grady69]

thanks for the fast response Bob

[Coppatop85]

I heard the non macro version was sharper, and focused more accurately.

[Bobster]

well i lent my lens out to another tog, who has recently bought the macro version, he reckons the newer model focuses faster and is just as sharp..

[JBerlotti]

I have the macro II and I think its pretty damn sharp. I have since picked up the Canon 70-200 2.8L but the Sigma is an awesome bang for the buck. I still have the Sigma for my wife and as a backup just in case. Took this with my Sigma lens before I got my Canon.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f28/jberlotti/IMG_8335-Edit.jpg

[j.owen]

The macro II focuses faster in both directions, not just out or in. From speaking with the rep the version 1 would focus slower in (?) i think, where as v2 is the same in both directions.

[Grady69]

would you guys recommend the sigma over the tamron version? ill mainly use it for sports, some wildlife, and candids?

[GSH]

would you guys recommend the sigma over the tamron version? ill mainly use it for sports, some wildlife, and candids?

I can't comment on the Tamron as i've never used it but i'm more than happy with my Sigma 70-200 EX DG. I hadn't used it for almost a year but now i've got the 50D it makes a nice lightweight alternative for when i can't be bothered carrying the 1DMK2N and 120-300 around...

An example of the 70-200 on the 50D. Focus point was over the number plate...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Images%202009/Croft%20Historic/Croft%20Historic-0019.jpg

[Bobster]

the Sigma has a Hypersonic Motor, the Tamron doesn't. altho' i have 2 wide angle Tamron's i love my Sigma 70-200 for sports (i also use a x2 Tele on it)

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/65850375.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/102350549.jpg