PDA

View Full Version : Post Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro pics please

ben4633
19th of January 2007 (Fri), 00:35
Thinking of getting a 70-200. Dont know if it should be canon or sigme though. Please post your best Sigma photos. Thanks
momentz
19th of January 2007 (Fri), 02:35
They're a little awkward and heavy to use as a macro lens, besides they don't do true macro 1:1 although they do come close.

If money is no object, get the canon (mmmm white goodness) - otherwise get the sigma as it's arguably as sharp and the focus motor is awesomely quick and silent.

Not a macro image, but here's one from my EX DG Macro - I really like this lens!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/evobit/IMG_6481.jpg?t=1169195656
Mr. Clean
19th of January 2007 (Fri), 08:54
Here's my review of the lens, along with a few pages of sample pics.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=232172&highlight=sigma+70-200

Personally I think it's a better buy than the Canon. It's a touch light, quick to AF, sharp wide open, and the quasi-macro ability gives it a little oomph.
ben4633
19th of January 2007 (Fri), 11:19
What can I expect to pay for the simgma compared to the canon. Ive seen some go for 650 bucks, but is that realistic? Do you think giving up the 2.8 to have a canon white lens is worth it?
Mr. Clean
19th of January 2007 (Fri), 11:30
What can I expect to pay for the simgma compared to the canon. Ive seen some go for 650 bucks, but is that realistic? Do you think giving up the 2.8 to have a canon white lens is worth it?
I paid full retail for mine. About 889 I think. You can certainly find it cheaper used, or through sigma4less.com or another grey market seller. I like buying my stuff new and enjoying the 4 year warranty of my EX lenses. 650 is probably too low. 700-800 is a "fair" used price. And no I do not think giving up 2.8 to have a Canon L is worth it. On the other hand, if you can afford the extra money for the Canon 2.8 version, that would be a good bet. If it was between the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4 (which I was) I'd spend a little more money on the Sigma to have 2.8. Also remember the f4 70-200 does not come with a tripod collar, making the price difference a little less.