Anybody who actually own the 70-200 or 100-300 EX's from Sig

[vvizard]

If so, please _please_ post me some 100% uncropped pics from one of them. My sallery is just one week away, and I still haven't been able to decide between theese:

Canon 70-200mm f/4L
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX

Looks like I'll get one of the Sigma's, but I _really_ want some pictures from the Sigma's. I've seen TONS from the Canon. Although what I read from reviews are great, and to me, it looks like one of the Sigma's would give me more bang for the buck. 95% of all reviews I've read from it theyre _AMAZING_ and L-comparable. Although 100% of the Canon-reviews tell they're amazing ;) It's just that with Sigma I can eiter get another 100mm, or a f2.8 vs f4 with canon (No I really can't afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L)

I would also like to see pictures of the sigmas mounted on a 10D (or similiar). I wan't to see their size.. That goes for the Canon too. Never seen a picture of a 10D with the 70-200mm mounted. The last one can't be to hard to accomplish in this forum can it? =)

Anyway.. Sallery one week ahead in time, and for the first time ever, that frightens me, cause I know I'll order the day it arrives, and I _really_ hope I don't make the wrong decision :/

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm afraid I don't have any full size images uploaded anywhere,. but i am a long time 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma owner and indeed it is a fantastic lens and a bargain.

ISO 800 handheld no flash

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=544770&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

the rest of the Fashion show is here,. all with the Sigma
http://cyberdynesytemsimaging.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=23439

Some of my Bird pics were with the 70-200 including these one;

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1428160&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1419941&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1214025&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

This one was with the 2X teleconverter;

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=886830&outx=980&oq=0&noresize=1&nostamp=1

[vvizard]

Cool, thanks. Great replies. And _BIG_ thanks to you (whatever you're forum-nick is) who mailed me the 100% pics. But CDS: You seem to know a lot of photography. If you where to pick again, would you get the 70-200 f/2.8 EX or the 100-300 f/4 EX?

And.. Have you tested the 70-200mm f/4L ? And if, is it as good that you would give away you're f/2.8 for it?

[vvizard]

Oh yeah, this should be mentioned I guess.. What I want to use it for =) I wan't to use it to shoot sports. Motorsports preferable, but probably also soccer sometimes. When not shooting sports, it would be used to shoot nature and wildlife in Norway (we got great nature). So in the first, I guess fastest lens possible would be good, and in second, I think long as possible would be good.. Somehow, I feel the 70-200mm f/4L got none of them :-P

[Canuck]

I recon that puts the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 EX out of the picture. Too bad. It's a stunning lens and between $1900 and $1700. I got mine for $1900 when it first came out from B&H. The only reason I say that is because I have the 120-300 EX lens. The filters though, are very expensive.

For samples of that lens check out topic ID #17977 for those pics I took in late Aug, and early Sept respectively. The Tenby pic is a compressed JPEG (original size: 2.6 MB) and the moon pic is as taken, just cropped out the rest of the night sky. Both were taken Large, Fine with a 10D mounted to freehand for the Tenby pic and on tripod for moon pic.

Cheers,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

I would not trade my f/2.8 for either of the f/4 models you mention as I got it to fill a specfic need.

I work in a theatre and sometimes have the oportunity t leave the darkness of backstage and get some shots of the events I am working on.

For that I need a lens that has a large aperture as I can not use flash and the lighting can be very dim.. and I need EXACTLY 200mm as the longest end of the zoom range.

So no I would not trade it for either. The onluy lens I would trade the Sigma f/2.8 for is the Canon model with IS (assuming the IS would be benificial) but that lens costs three times what the Sigma does.

I have strongly considered both the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 and the 120-300mm f/2.8 to fill in between the 70-200mm and my 500mm prime. But I thinmk in the end I will get a 300mm prime, either Canon f/4 or Sigma f/2.8

[vvizard]

Thanks again. No the 120-300 is definetly out of my wallet :( If it wheren't I wouldn't have hesitated =) I understand that a 2.8 is needed for indoor-shooting. I'm mostly gonna use it outdoors. Either in good light, or on a tripod. But since I've just bought my first SLR, and only got a 50mm f/1.4 prime for it yet, I would like to know how difficult is it to handheld shots at 200 or even 300mm as long as there's good light? Not difficult at all? Or should it be considered when facing the 200 vs 300 issue? I mean, I really wan't to opt for a faster lens at 200mm if 300mm is too long for that I can handheld it to shoot motorsports. That's the main reason I'm getting it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another reason to get the f/2. is you vcan use it with a sigma 2X t-con that costs only about $150.00 and that $150.00 will buy you a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens!!!! And a pretty good one!

Check out the prices on the 100-400mm f/5.6 zooms out there.. they are a lot more than $150.00 :D

[Canuck]

vvizard wrote:
Thanks again. No the 120-300 is definetly out of my wallet :( If it wheren't I wouldn't have hesitated =) I understand that a 2.8 is needed for indoor-shooting. I'm mostly gonna use it outdoors. Either in good light, or on a tripod. But since I've just bought my first SLR, and only got a 50mm f/1.4 prime for it yet, I would like to know how difficult is it to handheld shots at 200 or even 300mm as long as there's good light? Not difficult at all? Or should it be considered when facing the 200 vs 300 issue? I mean, I really wan't to opt for a faster lens at 200mm if 300mm is too long for that I can handheld it to shoot motorsports. That's the main reason I'm getting it.

vvizard,
IMHO, it is easy, just go for a high shutter speed like 1/500th sec to 1/1000th sec. I have had no problems shooting aricraft with the beast (the 120-300) or the 70-300 cheapie that I had prior to that. Ample light is your friend; too much or too llittle can make for problems! I was shooting pics of Concorde freehand on 24 Oct 03 and I was stunned! It was almost as good as (I'll let your imagination fill in the blank)!!! I can't get over it. I kinda miss taking absolute crap shots...NOT!!! I can't find the settings for the Tenby Beach Wales pic. D'oh!
High shutter speed freezes the action and results in clear pic. I might have to post one here, on this from that I took, but not of Concorde. That plane is something I am not ready to give up ther pics for. That one will be for money only, but believe me it's worth it. I will possibly post one of the BA or Aer Lingis jets I took.
We shall see...

Cheers,
Canuck

[vvizard]

High shutter-speeds will of course help, but you have to have enough light to use them =) That's one of the main reasons I wan't a 2.8 vs a 4.0

[mattchase]

Here is a comparison I did of the Sigma and Canon 70-200 2.8 lenses. Mainly meant to compare sharpness, and I think most people would agree there isn't much of a difference in that respect. There are full size images posted here. http://www.matthewchase.com/digitaldingus/sigma_canon_70-200/index.html

The following were all shot with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. Here is a full size sports image under bad light (no editing done, hence the underexposure. And sorry, it isn't the most exciting image)
http://www.matthewchase.com/digitaldingus/sigma70-200/UNLV9-19-03_36.JPG

Here are 2 full size images under good daylight (also no editing done).
http://www.matthewchase.com/digitaldingus/sigma70-200/IMG_2302.JPG
http://www.matthewchase.com/digitaldingus/sigma70-200/IMG_2314.JPG

[RbnDave]

I've had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for almost a month now. It's great. I had a hard time deciding between the Sigma and the Canon 70-200 f4. For the first week of ownership, I thought maybe I should have got the canon instead because I never used the f2.8 on the Sigma. Anyhow, the next week, I used the Sigma a bunch for indoor and low light shots. I don't think the canon could have gotten as good results with its limitted f stop.

Here are some examples I took

http://www.pbase.com/image/23258541.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/image/23406414.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/23257682.jpg

This one was taken through a triple pane polarized/heated windshield. The Sigma pulled through Ok
http://www.pbase.com/image/22644973.jpg

Here are some links to other shots I got with the Sigma 70-200 (I love to show my photos :) )

http://www.pbase.com/image/23270285
http://www.pbase.com/image/23196827
http://www.pbase.com/image/23249398
http://www.pbase.com/image/23256931

Here are some handheld at f2.8 and 1600 ISO. They may look a bit blurred because I am not the best handholder at 1/60, but these shots would have been impossible with the Canon f4

http://www.pbase.com/image/23411670
http://www.pbase.com/image/23400186
http://www.pbase.com/image/23399814

This one is taken at f2.8 ISO 1600 from a tripod, but through a window

http://www.pbase.com/image/23032312


Hope this helps you choose. I went through the same decision making process a month ago. I feel your pain.

And one final note... When they say this lens is huge, don't believe them. It is large and people will look at you funny, but I've walked miles with this thing strapped around my neck and I've had no problems.

Dave

www.pbase.com/rbndave

[RbnDave]

Oh yeah, you wanted to see this too.


http://www.pbase.com/image/23491857.jpg

Really, it's not as big as it looks.

And don't look at the name on the tripod. It shows my amateurness.

Dave

[vvizard]

I'm not scared by it's size. Not at all. I'm not scared by people thinking it's funny with such a big lens either. Wherever I've been to shoot sports with my old DiMage 7i, there would be "big-guns" bigger than this one. I think my tiny DiMage 7i 200mm made more people laugh than this one will =) At least now I can give the "Mine is almost as big as yours, and it's not about the size, but how we use it!" look back at them ;)

The soccer-matches for my local team usually have journalists there with some _BIG FREAKIN_ White lenses with red rings on them ;)

[Chris Los]

Here I put together a sample gallery of Sigma 100-300 F4 EX IF, hope this will give you some idea.
For most photos I also used Sigma EX 1.4x TC.

http://photo.freak3d.com/100300.html

ChrisL

[vvizard]

Thanks again for all the posts. This have really helped me a lot. I'm 90% sure to get the 70-200mm f/2.8 now. Wan't the 100-300 to, but it's another $100, so I think I'll save them by taking the f/2.8 instead. Will probably couple it with a 1.4x TC later on.

EDIT: Yeah, my 100th post =) I'm a very active member now :)

[morenoar]

I am so JEALOUS of all the pictures. I bought the Sigma 50-500mm my 2nd week of having my DREBEL. Took it out to the soccer fields and was NOT IMPRESSED at ALL. I was using a monopod for my shots. I would say about 80% of the shots had a kind of GHOST images. Like I had taken 3 or 4 shots and overimpossed them. No one that I should the pics to could explain what it was. But looking atall these NICE shots, I am going back to get the Sigma lens. Price wise

Everyone have a Happy Holidays and be safe

[rodbunn]

I like the large f-stop myself. Birds and sports I use this lense for and I love it. Have had it 2 years.

Good luck, Rod

Pics at:

http://www.xposeu.com/arobin1.jpg

http://www.xposeu.com/arobin2.jpg

Rod

[Wickedfn4u]

I just got my Sig 70-200mm 2.8 yesterday! I bought my 300D in November to start taking shots of my daughter’s soccer. I also bought the IS 28-135 and the 75-300mm IS zooms to go with. Well the last two games were overcast and so so on light. I was fighting with shutter speed and using my iso to make up for lack of light. I quickly borrowed a friends Sig and was amazed at the shutter speed I could shoot at. I did not even open the box for my 75-300 when it came. I listed it on Ebay and sold it for the Sigma. I then bought a 28-75mm Tamron f/2.8 for indoor soccer and basket ball. Now I am wondering if I should even keep the 28-135 canon.

Both the lenses I bought rated very-good on the AF SLR lens test guide. I just could not see dropping the funds that canon wanted for the same lens. Bottom line is my pictures are fantastic and I can get a shot in a lot lower light.

TC

[billfranklin]

HI,
Don't know about the 70-200, but I have had the 100-300 f4 for several months now and couldn't be happier.
Although a little heavy, it is one sharp lens. I would compare it to my Canon L lens any time. You might want to check out these hummers and sea gulls, all taken with this lens. http://www.picturecd.com/system/login.cgi?username=bfphoto

Happy shooting,

Bill F

[Canuck]

vvizard wrote:
High shutter-speeds will of course help, but you have to have enough light to use them =) That's one of the main reasons I wan't a 2.8 vs a 4.0

That goes w/o saying, you know!