Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM

[blonde]

alright guys,

i am in the market for a nice 70-200 lens and the final debate will be between the canon F4 and the sigma 70-200 2.8. i was actually all set on the sigma but i did some research on here and it seems like a lot of people are having issues with their copy. i see alot with focusing issues, wide opeen softness and even finish peeling off. now, i saw a bunch of threads with people posting some fantastic images with the sigma but i did not see alot of them post pics of the lens wide open. if the lens is rreally soft at 2.8, why not go for the canon f4?

i am asking people that own the sigma to post images on this thread of wide open shots. again, i really do want this lens but if it is almost unusable at 2.8 than i might as well go for the lighter, sharper canon.

[Col_M]

Mine will be delivered tomorrow, so weather permitting i should have some pics, i'm trying to think where i can go and there will ba a 100% chance i'll see a duck ;)

[In2Photos]

Mine will be delivered tomorrow, so weather permitting i should have some pics, i'm trying to think where i can go and there will ba a 100% chance i'll see a duck ;)

Well here lately it seems that the duck shot can be taken while sitting at your desk. Just pull up a duck on the screen and snap away.:p

[blonde]

haha,

lets open we can get alot of wide open images of this lens first (ducks can work as long as it was shot wide open)

[freeflydrew]

Here's one... 1/320, 1600 iso, f/2.8, 200 mm (low light):

[05Xrunner]

I just got my 70-200 f4L sat and went to the zoo yesterday.
I am blown away with the image quality.
These are all shot in jpeg and right out of the camera NO post process. I just used AV mode and had it on f4 all day
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_48532.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_4906.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_4839.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_4831.jpg

[GSH]

i am in the market for a nice 70-200 lens and the final debate will be between the canon F4 and the sigma 70-200 2.8. i was actually all set on the sigma but i did some research on here and it seems like a lot of people are having issues with their copy. i see alot with focusing issues, wide opeen softness and even finish peeling off. now.


Define " A lot"...

5,10,15, 20....out of how many sales? I'm pretty much certain that the users who are happy with their particular lens (i don't use the term "copy") just get out there and use it, as opposed to pixel-peeping on a net forum and moaning about it. :lol:

As for "Lens tests" on printed focus sheets....err ok, if that's what floats your boat, but i never saw a Photographer sell a shot of a bar code to a magazine :lol:

The nature of sites like this (as good as POTN is) means that those with issues will always shout loudest. I've seen countless posts about problems with assorted Canon L's but very few people are diverted from L fever by those posts, are they? ;)

Now, my 70-200 focusses fast enough to track Race cars & Military Jets, does not need a re-spray and if you want examples of how it performs wide open, here you go...

1# 70mm, 1/1600th @ f2.8.Centre Focus point was on the second girl in the line. This was a large, Fine JPEG straight from the camera using the parameter settings for the 20D suggested on the Sports Illustrated site.

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/48714173/original)

2#. 103mm, 1/320th @ f2.8 in very poor light on a cold January day...

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/55734719/original)

And now something stopped down a little. This was shot at Silverstone Circuit (Luffield Corner) and any of the Motorsports crowd on here will tell you 200mm is too short for there...so it's cropped quite a bit to make up for the lack of focal length. IMHO it's still pretty good...

200mm, 1/320th @ f5.6. Hand-held.

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/49564895/original)

Now, just to give an example of the focus speed. I was heading for the car-park at Silverstone when these 2 cars were approaching...it was a "grabbed" shot and the camera locked on quick enough...

Click! (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/_MG_3913-01.jpg)

Hope that helps :)

[blonde]

thats exactaly what i was looking for!!!! that is why i posted this thread, so i can tak to owners who are happy with their lenses.

any chance you will be selling your copy ? :)

[Jonn]

Hope you don't mind 05xRunner, but i had a go at doing some PP to your shots :)

http://img303.imageshack.us/img303/8118/potn19ji.jpg

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/861/potn26cx.jpg

[GSH]

any chance you will be selling your copy ? :)


Ooh let me think about that...

Errm, no. Sorry :)

[mbellot]

Just keep in mind that no lens maker is perfect.

My 70-200 IS came with a defective IS unit. :rolleyes:


I also think you need to be careful when looking at wide open sharpness. If the lens was handheld and the shutter was below ~ 1/500 you might be seeing some camera shake or movement in focus.

[blonde]

Just keep in mind that no lens maker is perfect.

My 70-200 IS came with a defective IS unit. :rolleyes:


I also think you need to be careful when looking at wide open sharpness. If the lens was handheld and the shutter was below ~ 1/500 you might be seeing some camera shake or movement in focus.

understood. i am looking for 2.8 in good lighting. i will never fault a lens if it was used in such slow shutter as to produce shake, that is the owners fault.

[subtle_spectre]

Okay friends...I did some more testing on the new Sigma 70-200 follwing this morning's round. My results are in my original thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1257921&postcount=21

[GSH]

understood. i am looking for 2.8 in good lighting. i will never fault a lens if it was used in such slow shutter as to produce shake, that is the owners fault.


Ooh how about...Summer's day, 1/1600th @ f2.8...(Not wife / Girlfriend safe) ;)

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/48714183)

[blonde]

GSH, please do not post anymore unless you are willing to sell me your lens :)

j/k of course, those photos are fantastic!!!

scott, that is indeed strange... aree you sure your new 1d is setup right as far as the af focus go?

[subtle_spectre]

scott, that is indeed strange... aree you sure your new 1d is setup right as far as the af focus go?

Center point, expansion Cf off...don't know what else to do. I also just did the same test with my EF85 and both bodies...20D was dead on while 1D seemed front oriented...:mad:

[GSH]

Ok, i'll shut up :lol:

I'll be quite honest, i've gotten more than my fair share of bad shots with it too, but i put that down to user error more than anything else.

When i get it right, the lens performs very nicely indeed. At the very worst you might get one that's a bit below par and have to send it to Sigma for calibration.

Alternatively you'll get one that's perfectly ok and have many happy shooting hours with it :)

[blonde]

bad shots can happen to any lens and most of them are indeed user error. you can give a not so good photographer the almighty 500mm prime and he will still get bad shots. as for the sigma, i will try to pick one up used from one of the members here so i can be sure that it is a goodd copy. i don't feel like buying a lens than having to send it back to sigma for calibration... i am sure that there are some members who are looking to upgrade to the canon IS version so when they do, i will be right there to snatch the sharp copy :)

i will tell you this, if the paint peels off i will be pissed!!! i like my lenses to stay nice and clean :)

[blonde]

Center point, expansion Cf off...don't know what else to do. I also just did the same test with my EF85 and both bodies...20D was dead on while 1D seemed front oriented...:mad:

send it back. this is an expensive item and it should work 100% spot on. however, i suggest that you try a more scientific test when you get the chance (tripod, mirror lock and shutter realese)...

[In2Photos]

Alright, enough chit chat, MORE PICS!:D

[GSH]

Alright, enough chit chat, MORE PICS!:D


OK..last one, i promise ;)

Same warning applies as before ;)

I take NO responsibility for any marital distress caused by your viewing of this image. That said, i hope you enjoy looking at it as much as i enjoyed taking it :lol:

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/48714195)

[Curtis N]

if the lens is rreally soft at 2.8, why not go for the canon f4?Because a shot at f/2.8 that's a little soft is better than a shot at f/4 that's blurry from a slow shutter.

I use mine stopped down a bit when I can. In the theatre, it's wide-open. It gives me pictures that no f/4 lens could.

[blonde]

Because a shot at f/2.8 that's a little soft is better than a shot at f/4 that's blurry from a slow shutter.

I use mine stopped down a bit when I can. In the theatre, it's wide-open. It gives me pictures that no f/4 lens could.

i understand that fully. however, i have seen some images at 2.8 that are not a "little" soft, they were unusable. also keep in mind that i am not a professional and i don't get paid to do this so if i miss a shot than it is not a big deal (i say it now but wait till you see me after i actually missed a shot :) )

[mbellot]

Ooh how about...Summer's day, 1/1600th @ f2.8...(Not wife / Girlfriend safe) ;)

Click! (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/48714183)

Suddenly I'm thirsty for a Foster's...

:D

[CyberDyneSystems]

How are we supposed to post our Bird pics after that?

sigh
O-kay here's a few early jpegs from the 10D..

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yybn9i&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=yybn9x&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
^ jpegs out of camera,. no USM. f/2.8 800 ISO ^

It's easy to find bad pics from any lens.. doesn't mean it's the lens' fault.

As mentioned,. these are not sharpened (but there not 100% crops either so were loosing a lot in translation) but the point is you can certainly get useable pics from this ,. one of Sigma's best lenses.

[Curtis N]

i have seen some images at 2.8 that are not a "little" soft, they were unusable.There was a thread here a week or so ago from someone whose lens apparently wasn't right. Don't believe that was "normal."

That said, I've seen soft shots from a plethora of lenses. It isn't always the lens's fault. ;)

Base your decision on objective, qualified lens reviews, not anecdotes from discussion forums. There are people here who are highly qualified to evaluate lenses, but it's not always easy to tell who they are.

[2005GLI]

I love my sigma. Its slightly soft wide open and i use that word loosely. Other then that i have never had a problem. Im actually going to be uploading a few more test shots to my other thread.

[GSH]

Because a shot at f/2.8 that's a little soft is better than a shot at f/4 that's blurry from a slow shutter.

I use mine stopped down a bit when I can. In the theatre, it's wide-open. It gives me pictures that no f/4 lens could.

A good point well made.

I would never have got this shot with the Canon F4...

http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/49102220/large.jpg

[Elton Balch]

Define " A lot"...

5,10,15, 20....out of how many sales? I'm pretty much certain that the users who are happy with their particular lens (i don't use the term "copy") just get out there and use it, as opposed to pixel-peeping on a net forum and moaning about it. :lol:

As for "Lens tests" on printed focus sheets....err ok, if that's what floats your boat, but i never saw a Photographer sell a shot of a bar code to a magazine :lol:

The nature of sites like this (as good as POTN is) means that those with issues will always shout loudest. I've seen countless posts about problems with assorted Canon L's but very few people are diverted from L fever by those posts, are they? ;)

:)

This is extremely good advice. Yes, I read the negative reviews and I accept that I might end up with the infamous "bad copy" but that's what warranties and return policies are for. I've purchased all of my equipment on-line (Amazon for the most part) and have had NO problems--zero, zip, nada, nyet, nein, no problem, alles gut, etc.:D All of my lenses, camera, acessories are fine!!

Now.....go push that buy button!!:p

[blonde]

ok, i am sold. now all i need to do is find a nice used copy and i am all set. i actually got a pm from somebody that offered to sell me his non DG copy for $700 not including shipping... i swear, some poeple are just too much..

[jmckell]

Go to B&H and enter in psjan. They have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG for $714.00 and a 4 year warranty.

You can't beat that.

[blonde]

wish i could. i am trying to save some money and i am already pushing it with my wife :)

plus, i figure that i will try to help a member that wants to move up to the canon IS :)

[imrtun]

My Lens.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3535/apo286yw.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
F/2.8 200mm 100% crop

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/3903/apo560ll.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
F5.6 200mm 100% crop

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/408/cheapo1998canon562ge.jpg
£5 Canon F/5.6 70mm 100% crop

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1547/sigma284lh.jpg
£500 Sigma F/5.6 70mm 100% crop

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6231/fullframe56canon2bh.jpg
Full frame canon 70mm.

I sent that lot to Sigma UK and here's the reply.

Dear Mr Catchpole

Please can you send me images at F2.8, one at 200mm focal length and at 4 and at 8 metres from subject the other at 70mm and at 1.4 and at 2.8 metres from subject. From the pictures you have sent me the lens seems to be to standard.

Kind regards

Daniel Cortes
Sigma Imaging UK Ltd


(My bold)

Other forum users lens.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1074/200mm100crop1ez.th.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=200mm100crop1ez.jpg)
F/2.8 100% crop

My conclusion, I'm 17, working below minimum wage, and if that really is standard even I would save up the extra for the Canon L.

[forsaken]

I'm looking at getting the 70 - 200 is there much difference between the DG and older non DG versions?

[imrtun]

No, apparenty the lens coating is better. The focus ring is also slightly different.

[imrtun]

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1341/handheldnight0le.th.jpg (http://img134.imageshack.us/my.php?image=handheldnight0le.jpg)

My Sigma f/2.8 200mm 1/30 Handheld

[dod]

Another at F2.8, I got this second hand from one of the guys on here, it's hardly been off the camera since

http://www.hardmuircroft.plus.com/Motor%20Sport/elgin%20120206/AClass/slides/IMG_0112.jpg

[Dave_G]

A selection of mine wide open..

300D, f2.8, ISO 100, 1/400s, 200mm, straight out of the camera
http://images12.fotki.com/v239/photos/1/105162/2879942/191105006-vi.jpg

300D, f2.8, ISO 200, 1/160s, 92mm, straight out of the camera
http://images14.fotki.com/v249/photos/1/105162/2879942/191105788-vi.jpg

300D, f2.8, ISO 400, 1/125s, 70mm, straight out of the camera
http://images12.fotki.com/v253/photos/1/105162/2879942/191105869-vi.jpg

Stop it down, and it's uber sharp.

300D, f8, ISO 100, 1/200s, 200mm, also straight out of the camera
http://images8.fotki.com/v108/photos/1/105162/2879942/191105499-vi.jpg

[imrtun]

The thing is, anything looks good at 800 pixels wide. I've taken some awful pictures that looked great at that resolution.

[JennB]

I just ordered this lens and it's on its way!:D It's encouraging to see the images posted here taken with the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. I think my arsenal is complete for now.;) Please post more photos!

[GSH]

The thing is, anything looks good at 800 pixels wide. I've taken some awful pictures that looked great at that resolution.


I've posted several links to images considerably larger than 800px wide. Perhaps mine is a One-off" :lol:

At any reasonable viewing size (or even larger) it is a fine lens. More importantly, printed images using this lens are excellent. In fact i'm more than confident that if i were to give this lens to one of the Pro's on this site (particularly the Motorsports chaps) then they would produce images virtually indistinguishable from the Canon equivalent.

http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/49564879/original.jpg

[imrtun]

Okay, I'm jealous. That Sigma guy is pulling one over on me, I'm going to demand my copy has it's CA's fixed.

[Dave_G]

The thing is, anything looks good at 800 pixels wide. I've taken some awful pictures that looked great at that resolution.

f5.6, straight out of the camera
http://images16.fotki.com/v286/photos/1/105162/3268538/250206008copy-vi.jpg

100% crop
http://images1.fotki.com/v291/photos/1/105162/2337834/250206008-vi.jpg

If anyone was going to get sh*t results, it'd probably be me. I can't see much if any CA on that.

Oh well. Could have used a £5 Canon...

[Dave_G]

Actually Geoff - I have had some prints done recently and they have been spot on as it happens. Maybe we have 2 unique lenses? hahaha.

If anyone was gonna get a duff Sig it'd be me. But I didn't, so I'm chuffed.

[GSH]

If anyone was gonna get a duff Sig it'd be me. But I didn't, so I'm chuffed.

I know that feeling, i'm famous for my ability to purchase faulty electronic / electrical kit. Not a particularly good trait for a Sparky :lol:

That shot of the trucks i posted above was one of the first i did when i got the 70-200 and i deliberately shot at f2.8 for as much of the day as possible. It was in the Paddock at Silverstone during the BTCC meet last year. I was amazed with the detail on the 1st truck, even on that resized for web version.

I'm a happy bunny and i'll buy Sigma again without a second thought.....120-300 f2.8 ;)

[Dave_G]

Same here. Same lens. Same credit card bill. Same bollocking from the wife.

[bc4393]

I have one on the way in about a week. Anyone have some shots with that lens they will share to boost my excitment a bit? :)

[syntrix]

Sample pic (http://www.swankmonkey.com/mig/index.php?currDir=./Little_Rock_04SEP06&pageType=image&image=IMG_0071.jpg&startFrom=2)

Try this. Most in the album starting on pg 2 though were with this lens.

I'll try this:
http://www.swankmonkey.com/mig/albums/Little_Rock_04SEP06/IMG_0071.jpg

If it doesn't work your url in your browser probably doesn't start with http://photography-on-the.net

[blonde]

there are alot more right here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=144808

[NAisBEST]

Heres a couple...I love that darn lens!

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/Img_4289WEB-1.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/Img_4363WEB.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/Img_4354WEB.jpg

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b341/onefivealive/IMG_4568copy.jpg

[Dorman]

This thread is the devil, had my mind made up on the 70-200 F/4 but 2.8 has been nagging me in the back of my mind, curses on you all and lovely pics. ;)

[BThunderW]

Absolutely love the lens!

http://static.flickr.com/83/228728401_5220d3155c_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/59/228683736_63ca7d2adb_o.jpg

Cheers,

Tom

[bc4393]

This thread is the devil, had my mind made up on the 70-200 F/4 but 2.8 has been nagging me in the back of my mind, curses on you all and lovely pics. ;)

for the record I tried to find a used F4L on the forums (can't afford 550 on ebay) but never seemed to be fast enough so respond first to the sellers. Then I somehow managed to pick one of these up for the same price as the L forum prices so I'm pretty geeked to have the extra F stop.

[Dorman]

Nicely done BC4393. I'm more concerned with IQ, physical size, and weight between the two moreso than cost ($ is always a consideration though!)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Merg-O-Matic... ;)

[Dorman]

Seamless, how many frames did you stitch? ;)

[john.hem]

Here's one from the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG the model before the new macro version. I love this lens it's very sharp.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Laura1-1.jpg

John

[4x4rock]

I'll add mine share to the collection :)

heavily cropped.

http://www.sonnycao.com/gallery/albums/pismo_906/seagull.jpg

http://www.sonnycao.com/gallery/albums/pismo_906/bird2.jpg

[Mr. Clean]

hmmm - This or a 70-200 2.8 IS?

[NAisBEST]

hmmm - This or a 70-200 2.8 IS? I'd say if the funds allow, go for the IS...But, if youre looking into a 70-200 f/4L, I would seriously consider the Sigma first.

[Mr. Clean]

I'd say if the funds allow, go for the IS...But, if youre looking into a 70-200 f/4L, I would seriously consider the Sigma first.
That's the humdinger .... HUGE price difference and not sure I can talk myself into justifying the IS purchase. The f4, even though it's sharp as all get out, isn't wide enough for my tastes...

[Evan Idler]

Get the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 you won't be sorry. It's a great lens, for a great price.

--Evan

[GrendelZ]

Well I got mine yesterday and I have to say I have mixed feelings about it.I love the way it looks and especially the finish.I have only shot about 25 shots so far but it seems like it has to hunt for focus.Once I get focus it seems to track fairly good but it doesnt seem like it want to find focus well.I am going to shoot some football friday night so I will wait to pass judgement when I get to put it through a thorough test.

[Rhinotherunt]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2017275#post2017275

[patrickpkt]

I'm a long-time lurker, and this seems the most apt place for me to post despite its age. I've had my Sigma 70-200 for a while now and it's been great except at the long end. Having some free time tonight, I decided to test it out. It's sharp up through 135mm or so, but at the long end it gets really soft wide-open. Here's a 100% crop of an image at 200mm and f2.8:

http://mcneillfamily.net/lenses/images/Sigma%2070-200/200mm-2.8.jpg

So, is softness to this degree unusual, or am I just expecting too much? I'm trying to decide if it's worth sending back to Sigma. The rest of my test images are up at http://mcneillfamily.net/lenses/sigma-70-200

[4x4rock]

You shot that one at 1/2". Tripod and mirror lock or not, .5 of a second is way too long for pixel peeping :)

I'd shoot it again outdoor with better light and get shutter speed up at least 1/250 or so.

[patrickpkt]

You shot that one at 1/2". Tripod and mirror lock or not, .5 of a second is way too long for pixel peeping :)

I have to disagree. I had the camera on a sturdy table, used MLU + delayed shutter, so the shutter speed should be inconsequential. As proof, this test shot was 200mm, f11, and a 6 second exposure:

http://mcneillfamily.net/lenses/images/Sigma%2070-200/200mm-11.jpg

[Bonjour43ma]

___

[Rhinotherunt]

I'm a long-time lurker, and this seems the most apt place for me to post despite its age. I've had my Sigma 70-200 for a while now and it's been great except at the long end. Having some free time tonight, I decided to test it out. It's sharp up through 135mm or so, but at the long end it gets really soft wide-open. Here's a 100% crop of an image at 200mm and f2.8:

http://mcneillfamily.net/lenses/images/Sigma%2070-200/200mm-2.8.jpg

So, is softness to this degree unusual, or am I just expecting too much? I'm trying to decide if it's worth sending back to Sigma. The rest of my test images are up at http://mcneillfamily.net/lenses/sigma-70-200
Looks like a focus issue. Front or back focus...?

Mine is superb. If you have issues, and 100% sure it is not user error... send it back.

[Croasdail]

Looks like DOF of f11 saved the second shot. I see this sooooo often with tons of lens test. At that distance, f2.8 has a razor edge DOF. If you are even sitting inches inside it's minimum focus range, you will get results like this. Now that might now be what happened here, but when you test, make sure you are shooting at a very safe distance away from the object that minimum focus distance is not a factor. F11 will have a closer min. then f2.8. Now with all that jabber said, f2.8 is a lot softer then f11 - end of story... for all lenses. But also remember that a 100% crop on screen is the same as a 400%+ crop printed. The pixel\dot size on screen is many many times larger then the dots a printer makes. You would have to use a microscope to get the same representation factor. Therefor you are seeing a false represenation of how the final image will be reproduced. It's just not apples to apples folks.

Oh - last thing. Yes - the finnish on my sigma is coming off near the mount. Not very happy about it but the lens just keeps doing a great job. I am surprised on the finnish thing though.. shame.

[05Xrunner]

yea I was worried about the same thing with this lens..if it was gonna be to soft wide open and the CA's
I finally bit the bullet and sold my 70-200 f4L and got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 DG
hopefully it will be here wed.

[4x4rock]

I shot some tests at 200mm. This is the first time I shot some barcodes and couldn't find one handy and the Taquila bottle was right there :)

All 100% cropped

f2.8 ... a little bump in contrast and USM and it turns out pretty good.
http://www.sonnycao.com/web/70-200/test/f28c.jpg

f3.5
http://www.sonnycao.com/web/70-200/test/f35c.jpg

f4
http://www.sonnycao.com/web/70-200/test/f4c.jpg

f5.6
http://www.sonnycao.com/web/70-200/test/f56c.jpg

Full image resized
http://www.sonnycao.com/web/70-200/test/small.jpg

[05Xrunner]

the full frame pic looks nice. I think pixel peeping always gets everyone in trouble..LOL

[4x4rock]

the full frame pic looks nice. I think pixel peeping always gets everyone in trouble..LOL


So true :D

I mostly print 4x6 and once in a while 8x10 so every pics look good on prints.

[05Xrunner]

yea...I doubt you would ever see that softness till you printed up to its full size like a 20x30

[Rhinotherunt]

Measurebating leads to blindness... LOL!

[pakololo]

:) 3

[Echo63]

i got my sigma 70-200 2.8 yesterday, it has had a bit of a workout and about half of my pics are badly out of focus, i think this may be because of the narrow depth of field at f2.8 and moving subjects at close range (my cats at 2-10 metres
there are alot of images that i have that have come out razor sharp so i am convinced my copy is ok and the problem exists between the ground and the shutter button

[AccidentalArt]

i had the F4, sold it, got the sigma 2.8, then thought i had focus problems at 200mm and 2.8. Then I learned that the DOF at that focal length at 30' is only .72'. Once I figured out the DOF thing, pics got better. A little experience can really make a good lens great!

Have fun with whatever you get!

[Borderfox]

These 2 are wide open at f2.8

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_48480209.jpg

Vhttp://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_1933a.jpg


Super lens cant say enough about it. I do mostly equestrian photos so no flash, the f2.8 is such a help in low light even the brighter viewfinder helps. Loved the Sigma so much I got an 18-50 f2.8 to match.

[jsg]

not wide open but with my sigma 70-200 on a 10d

[Mr. Clean]

I can only say:
I'm glad I order mine (the macro version)
and...
:eek: :D

[wayne_eddy]

Here's a shot I took yesterday of a moving Rainbow Bee Eater. Its at about a 30% crop (if I understand what you ppl mean by that!).

This is one of my better shots with the lens and have had some hurried PP and sharpening only.

From reading quite a few posts and vewing an equl number of images, I get the idea that the 70-200 performs much better - as I would expect - with better cameras than the XT's. Every time I saw an image that made me think "wow that's really sharp and clear" I noted that the user had a 1D/30D or similar.

Either way IMHO the 70-200mm is a great buy for the price and has many good reviews. I will shortly be getting a 1.4x tube for mine.

http://images.fotopic.net/yjw58b.jpg

What I want to know is how this guy (and others) get such a sharp and light image with:

f/4
S 1/4000
ISO 200
FL 200

http://static.flickr.com/59/228683736_63ca7d2adb_o.jpg

If I shot that I'd get a black screen!

[4x4rock]

What I want to know is how this guy (and others) get such a sharp and light image with:

f/4
S 1/4000
ISO 200
FL 200

http://static.flickr.com/59/228683736_63ca7d2adb_o.jpg

If I shot that I'd get a black screen!


That pic was taken outdoor will full sunshine with maybe AI Servo. With very sunny days, I do get SS 1/4000 or even 1/8000.

[syntrix]

A few from some quick snap this weekend of the tdi I have up for sale:

http://www.lasvegastech.com/passat/IMG_0937.jpg

http://www.lasvegastech.com/passat/IMG_0940.jpg

http://www.lasvegastech.com/passat/IMG_0944.jpg

http://www.lasvegastech.com/passat/IMG_0948.jpg

I decided to go without a cp to keep the depth of the paint. I'm sure some will find the windshield distracting, but that was my choice. All shot at f/2.8

[Mr. Clean]

Nice! What's the exif info and how much PP? Those really look great.

[Borderfox]

Sweet looking tdi

[Broncobear]

This is with my 2.8

http://static.flickr.com/91/270932438_163deda943_b.jpg

[syntrix]

Nice! What's the exif info and how much PP? Those really look great.

Most are at the short range, 70mm, 100, 2.8

Just a light touch of color and sharpening.

I should have used my 17-55 IS, but I'm so addicted to the output of the 70-200mm with car shots, it just felt natural to use it.

[Rhinotherunt]

Just a few...

Too Cute Not to Share! (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=231411)

[Dorman]

Great images from everyone in here.

[moronNZ]

I used my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG exclusively at 200mm, mainly for casual birding...

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/4654/img6128ur1.jpg
a greenfinch

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1719/img5237vz1.jpg
a NZ kingfisher

To me, 200mm F2.8 is still quite usable too with minor sharpening.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9379/img6089gl6.jpg

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7803/img6021vg1.jpg
a dunnock

Overall, I love this lens, and I am glad to see many people here felt the same way too...

[wayne_eddy]

I love mine, works really well.

I used to be a 2.8 shooter for many things, now I use 5.6 - 6.3 (sharper with this lens).

Mr MoronNZ the DOF works well with this angle - shows the eye as a the main point of detail.

[safehaven]

200mm f/3.5 1/1250 ISO 100
http://home.comcast.net/%7Esafe.haven/IMG_0323-01.jpg

100% crop
http://home.comcast.net/%7Esafe.haven/IMG_0323-01_100crop.jpg

[syntrix]

since this is the current working set, here's one from the siggy with the really long name at f/3.5

http://www.swankmonkey.com/rj/IMG_1457x.jpg

[05Xrunner]

here are some recent ones of mine
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_0606.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_0581.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_0521.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a224/05Xrunner/IMG_0427.jpg

[Rhinotherunt]

The first image on THIS THREAD (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=250565) is taken with the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX HSM.

[Dorman]

Nice Images XRunner and Rhino, less than two weeks until I can get my hands on mine. Stoked.

[CatchingUp]

I plan on making my purchase within the next few months and have struggled with this very debate...go with the Canon or the Sigma 2.8. I have two friends who own each and so I did my own test one afternoon using both lenses on my body...took about 5 shots of same subjects.

When I downloaded them on my PC...I can say after a lot of fine comb observations, I could detect a tad more sharpness in the Canon lens. But I don't know if it was enough to fork out 400 extra dollars. I'm thinking go with the Sigma and then get a 50 1.4 and a battery grip for my 30D.

Oh...the choices life throws out at us...

[Rhinotherunt]

Nice Images XRunner and Rhino, less than two weeks until I can get my hands on mine. Stoked.

NICE! Looking forward to seeing some images!

But I don't know if it was enough to fork out 400 extra dollars. I'm thinking go with the Sigma and then get a 50 1.4 and a battery grip for my 30D.


I was in the same boat. I am pleased with the Sigma. You are going to have a pretty nice kit.

[Dorman]

Catching Up - I'd be tempted (and was!) to put the extra $400 for the Canon to use towards other photo gear. I'll be passing my savings onto a body upgrade or UWA.

[Rhinotherunt]

Catching Up - I'd be tempted (and was!) to put the extra $400 for the Canon to use towards other photo gear. I'll be passing my savings onto a body upgrade or UWA.
I have been wanting a body upgrade for sometime. I have had my 300D for close to 3 yrs now. I will never part from it though. Even when i get a new body. I plan on going full frame and have been eying 5D's for sometime now... but it is going to be a while.

[Dorman]

I've thought about holding out for the 5D, it's price tag is a pill I don't think I could swallow, hard to justify when a 30D would suit me just fine I guess.

[Rhinotherunt]

I've thought about holding out for the 5D, it's price tag is a pill I don't think I could swallow, hard to justify when a 30D would suit me just fine I guess.
I understand that. I was seriously considering a 30D, but felt my IQ would not significantly be effected to justify the purchase. I would see a big difference in IQ with a 5D however.

[Dorman]

I understand that. I was seriously considering a 30D, but felt my IQ would not significantly be effected to justify the purchase. I would see a big difference in IQ with a 5D however.

As would I.... curses on you for mentioning it, I've been trying to surpress the voices in my head...haha

[Rhinotherunt]

As would I.... curses on you for mentioning it, I've been trying to surpress the voices in my head...haha
LOL! Hold out long enough like me and a 5D MARK II or something will be out and the prices of the 5D (Original) will become even more obtainable!

[Rjohnston]

I love mine

1/640 f/2.8 ISO 1600

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n284/rcjohnston/Swim/DPP_0015.jpg

[wayne_eddy]

350D
ISO 200
1/200
f/9.0
sigma 70-200mm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~damask/Wayne/Photo/scribbly/dec/Yellow_Striped_Hunter.jpg

Comments and critique appreciated.

[Dorman]

Wayne - wow, great shot. Very sharp, great color/contrast, awesome blurred out background. Getting excited for my lens!

RJohnston - nice capture there, definitely tells a story. Ahhh 2.8

[Borderfox]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/Clontarf8.jpg

[Honeybee]

Here's one.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k114/LovellaJ/WORK/Ang4.jpg

[marian]

I've used a Sigma f2.8 24-70mm lens for about 25 weddings now, as the primary lens. I have not had any problems with it.

[R0cKF0rD]

Here are some 100% crops with my 70-200DG Macro...
I've seen results which were quite similar to mine. IMO, it looks really bad @ 200mm @ F/2.8, I really wasn't expecting this much softness. I Got to step it down to F/5.6 in order to get usable results.

Up to 130-150mm, at most, everything is great, even @ F/2.8.

1st - 200mm @ F/2.8 :

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/546/dsc7638yy8.jpg


2nd - 200mm @ F/4.5 :

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/473/dsc7639am8.jpg

3rd - 200mm @ F/5.6 :

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/56/dsc7640md5.jpg

[Thordic]

I've seen plenty of examples of why to buy this lens, its next on my list of things to pick up.

However, I can't seem to find a good picture of it on a camera anywhere. Can anyone take a picture of it on a camera? 300D or 20D would be nice, or throw some pocket change or a ruler in there for reference. I'm just curious.

[Mr. Clean]

I don't have any pics here but if I remember I can post one or two when I get home. It's about the same diameter as your Sigma 24-70 at it's widest and about 6 inches longer fully extended.

[jedwards]

I made the mistake of borrowing a canon 70-200L f/2.8 (no IS) before buying a sigma, to decide if I liked the range.
The canon is indeed a better lens, faster focus and better wide open, and the colors are better IMO. It is also about $300 more, slightly larger, heavier and white.
All in all, I am happy with the sigma, but I wish it was a bit better on the long end wide open - I used to own a 200L f/2.8 and I was spoiled a bit by the performance of an L prime.
The sigma is a great choice if you have a budget.

[turbodude]

how much is this lens used?

[Mr. Clean]

About 700 - 750 ish depending on macro vs. non macro, use etc.

[Mr. Clean]

Here are some 100% crops with my 70-200DG Macro...
I've seen results which were quite similar to mine. IMO, it looks really bad @ 200mm @ F/2.8, I really wasn't expecting this much softness. I Got to step it down to F/5.6 in order to get usable results.

Up to 130-150mm, at most, everything is great, even @ F/2.8.

1st - 200mm @ F/2.8 :




2nd - 200mm @ F/4.5 :



3rd - 200mm @ F/5.6 :


That exif says exposure time was 1/6 on a Nikon D50. Unless you had an uber stable tripod, cable release and MLU on I'd say bad test.

[prime80]

Mine just got delivered to my house!!! :)

However...I'm at work. :(

[prime80]

That exif says exposure time was 1/6 on a Nikon D50. Unless you had an uber stable tripod, cable release and MLU on I'd say bad test.

However...his other two shots, which are noticeably sharper, have longer exposures.

[august23]

Me want NOW. I think this lens is the perfect dilemma-solver/middle man for people deciding between the 70-200 f/4 IS andthe 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

[4x4rock]

However, I can't seem to find a good picture of it on a camera anywhere. Can anyone take a picture of it on a camera? 300D or 20D would be nice, or throw some pocket change or a ruler in there for reference. I'm just curious.

A few pics of the lens on a 20D+grip. Next to it is a 20D and the 17-85 IS, pretty significantly larger ;)

Taken by another 20D + 17-85is :D

http://www.sonnycao.com/web/sigma/img_4026.jpg

http://www.sonnycao.com/web/sigma/img_4027.jpg

http://www.sonnycao.com/web/sigma/img_4029.jpg

[turbodude]

damn thats alot bigger than i thought how much longer is that than the f4l

[TeamSpeed]

Use mine for alot of hockey.

[4x4rock]

damn thats alot bigger than i thought how much longer is that than the f4l

Maybe the hood gives it a longer impression.

The 70-200 f4 is just a little shorter but the Sigma is bulkier.

I can probably take a pic with both lens side by side tonight.

[turbodude]

you have both? You are a lucky man!

[4x4rock]

you have both? You are a lucky man!


It belongs to a friend. I just happen to have it lying around :)

http://www.sonnycao.com/web/sigma/IMG_5203.JPG


http://www.sonnycao.com/web/sigma/IMG_5204.JPG

[Thordic]

Thanks a lot. Doesn't look much smaller than my Bigma :) Now I just gotta start saving.

[grimreaper]

bump

[RyanD]

I just finished reading through this thread and was wondering whether the tripod ring came standard with the Sigma? If so, then that would be a major selling point considering the cost of buying one from Canon....You may want to take this into consideration if $$ is a factor.

[4x4rock]

Yes, the tripod ring comes with the lens.

[Ogrt48]

I'm trying to decide between the reg canon 70-200l f4 and this lens. So hard =\

[rdsmith3]

I'm trying to decide between the reg canon 70-200l f4 and this lens. So hard =\

You can still get the Sigma for $789 at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=13047&A=details&Q=&sku=478219&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[spyraling]

You can still get the Sigma for $789 at B&H.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=13047&A=details&Q=&sku=478219&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Bob, how did you get this? Whenever I did a search for this lens on B&H, it just showed the $889.00 one. You've become a life saver!

[rdsmith3]

Bob, how did you get this? Whenever I did a search for this lens on B&H, it just showed the $889.00 one. You've become a life saver!

I saw it on this site. I was trying to decide which lens to get, and this (saving $100) tipped me over the edge, so I bought the Sigma.

[JaGWiRE]

I like the build better then the build on the 70-200L, and the macro on this lens.
The only thing is, I'll probably be shooting it at 2.8 a lot at 200mm, and I'm not a big fan of sharpening. My 70-200 f/4L is shot wide open usually for street shooting now throughout the range (probably mostly at 200mm), and I only want to replace it for the extra f-stop (for more bokeh and faster shutter.)

[john.hem]

All taken with the Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/ThaiDancer3.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Buddha2.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/johnhem/Monkey2.jpg

John

[Ogrt48]

I'm going to be getting one of these in the summer. I just can't decided which one. I'll most likely only use it outside in good weather. I use my tamron and 50m indoors and I'm too depressed during bad\dark weather to shoot in that. Is the Sigma as quick to focus as the usm on the f4 canon? Image quality just as good on the sigma or better?

[Borderfox]

Rugby
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/Clontarf1.jpg

Horses
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/Spiritweb.jpg

Birds
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y213/Borderfox/IMG_1933a.jpg

It can do the lot, super lens. On the weight of this I got another Sigma lens.

[mij]

but i never saw a Photographer sell a shot of a bar code to a magazine :lol:

That surprises me as all the magazines I see are so interested in barcodes they put a picture of one on the front cover of every edition.

Was interesting re-reading this thread as this lens has long been on my wishlist and hopefully I will have my order in by the weekend.

Michael.

[syntrix]

That surprises me as all the magazines I see are so interested in barcodes they put a picture of one on the front cover of every edition.

Was interesting re-reading this thread as this lens has long been on my wishlist and hopefully I will have my order in by the weekend.

Michael.

It's also odd that I've never seen any CA in those bar codes!

[moronNZ]

my recent shooting with this lens...awesome glass

1.
http://www.freewebtown.com/moronNZ/Avian/IMG_7758.JPG

2.
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2239/img8468zx4.jpg

3.
http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/7269/img7641gv4.jpg

4.
http://www.freewebtown.com/moronNZ/Avian/IMG_7537.JPG

[troutbreath]

Here's a few. Great shots on this thread.http://www.michaelrparker.com/images/ish_3.jpg

http://www.michaelrparker.com/images/jamie_4.jpg

http://www.michaelrparker.com/images/24_web.jpg

http://www.michaelrparker.com/images/scrimmage_10.jpg

[JaGWiRE]

This lens must be pretty bad that everyone is shooting it at 200mm at 3.5/4.

[aCiD99]

Finally decided to post some:
http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/lambo13.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/bird12.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/bird4.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/bird8.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/fly4.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/fly8.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/tough2.jpg

http://bradgoldring.com/temp_host/POTN/tough4.jpg

100% crop, unprocessed.

[speedy_2]

I love this lens!!

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3460/blueshow1eh0.jpg

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/8714/blueshow2fy7.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1112/blueshow12zu5.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6785/staticsm5dg8.jpg

With the 2x Converter on
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/1211/moon2lg4rl7.jpg

[Rhinotherunt]

From the Sigma @ 200mm on a 5D

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t66/Ryan_McGill/20070328-_MG_0042.jpg

[JennB]

I love my Sigma 70-200...mainly use it for soccer with the 1.4x TC!:)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/271695956_e7436b5f52_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/102/271276162_94578c994c_b.jpg

[turbodude]

awesome shots!