I'm keeping my baby after all :)

[vvizard]

I'm not selling my Sigma EX 70-200mm after all. I'm in such love that I'll sacrifice christmas-presents this year instead =)

No seriously. Got an advance on this months sallery, so I can afford to keep it :) Had time to test it a bit now also, and just have to say that it rocks :) We're having the normal dull early-winter light in norway at the moment. That means low light even when the sun is at it's highest. Hope we get some snow soon, that will rectify it. 22 Des the sun will turn anyway, and start to brighten up our lives again =)

But no matter how much the light sucks right now, it really makes me love the f/2.8. Actually I don't love it, I hate it, but I understand going bigger will be way to expensive =) So f/2.8 is my minimum theese days. It usually means going to ISO-400 to get correct exposure. I even have to drag out my 50mm f/1.4 some times now, when the sun is at it's highest. (I don't have any lenses with apertures in between (heck I don't have any other lenses no matter what))

So after some shooting, I just have to say that this lens is really good. It's weight/balance is fine on my 10D (your milage may vary), the focus/zoom-rings are butter-smooth. Regarding ring-smoothness, comparing the 50mm f/1.4 to the Sigma, that was like going from hell to heaven :) Don't know if my 50mm's focus-ring is particular bad, but it's _very_ choppy compared to the smoothness on the Sigma. My shots are usually OK. Maybe just a tiny, little bit soft at f/2.8. I might have come across a CA-issue, but I haven't verified it, and I will post pics from this lens as soon as I can (de)verify it.

[karusel]

Yes, everyone seems to love this Sigma lens, I have yet to read a negative review... I'm going to buy it as soon as I can.

[Belmondo]

Attaboy, vvizard! We're all happy for you---really!

Tom

[vvizard]

Here's a pic I took with it. Of a Swan (or whatever that is in english). Notice the halo around it's body. It doesn't come from sharpening. Yes, The picture I took with it have been sharpened, but the halo was there before. It happened around the swans on many of the shot's. It really freaks me out :/ Is the the price to pay for zoom's, do I have a bad copy, or might the bright white body make this not-so wierd? I got _REAL_ close to theese beasts. Shot with my 50mm in the end, and that one didn't give any halo around. But the Sigma haven't shown me any halo's in any pictures other than the swans. So what you think?

http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=92830&sort=ID&brukerid=15668&kategori=&hideThumbs=0&brukernivaa=0&lukketforum=0&offsett=0&foreningsid=

You might as well drop a comment on it to tell me what's good/bad about it if you like

[Belmondo]

vvizard:
I only read English (and not that well), but it looks like you shot that at f/2.8, 1/350, and 280mm. That last number throws me just a little since your camera is a 70-200. Were you using an extender? Did you try the same picture stopped down a little with a slower shutter?

Also, I see the posted image is 600 X 581 pixels. Is this a 100% crop?

Basically, it's a very decent picture, but the halo is really distracting. You're right about that.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Man that is weird?

In this shot it seems to be strongest on the left hand side.

The area around the left hand side of the body where the halo is most pronounced is clearly out of focus,. (as it should be with the DOF of f/2.8 and the swans head,. probably at least a 2 feet closer to the lesns in perfect sharp focus!)

..but I wonder of there is a DOF blur thing going on?

Very odd,. I can tell you I have taken hundreds of shots with this lens,. including dozens of swans... (but the lighting would have been very different) and I have not seen this at all.

hmmm :(

[ilya]

I don't know what you all were looking at, I didn't see any halos. "Therese" is the picture I'm supposed to stare at, yes?

[Belmondo]

Ilya:
Therese has a halo, too. How could someone that angelic not have a halo? Look harder.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh Therese?

You mean my new wallpaper?

[vvizard]

Belmondo: 175*1.6=280. I always take the 1.6x factor into consideration before printing focal-length. So no, no TC was used.

No this is not a 100% crop. I've just cropped off a lot of "uninteresting" water on the top/bottom, then it's scaled down below 50%.

CDS: Yeah, it might be a DOF-effect. You're probably right. I'll try shooting them again some day, with a larger f-number, and see if I still get the same effect. I'll post my findings when that happens.