is the sigma 70-200 DG macro worth $200 more than the non DG Macro?

[bigcountry]

i can get the non DG macro version for about 200 less than the newer model, is the newer model worth the extra $$$?

[august23]

yes.

wow thats a vague answer.

[pcasciola]

In my opinion, no way!! I haven't seen a direct comparison between the two yet, but from what I understand the only difference is a coating on the rear element to minimize potential reflections on digital sensors. A phenomenon I've never experienced with my Sigma. Check out the difference in price for my Sigma 500/4.5. It's over $1000 more for the DG!!!

The only reason I might say it's worth $200 is for resale value.

[august23]

Remember this, theres always a damn good reason companys price their products the way they do.

[Travis F]

i can get the non DG macro version for about 200 less than the newer model, is the newer model worth the extra $$$?

While I don't have the 70-200 sigma, I do have the 120-300 non DG. I have used a loaner DG version from Sigma while mine was in for calibration (long story). I noticed absolutely no difference in image quality or than the house lens hit focus where it should;) . Which mine does now thanks to a little help from Sigma Service.

Only thing I am not clear on; was the previous model a DG, but non macro? Or did they change both at the same time? If it is just a difference of DG vs non-DG then I would most definetely say NO not worth $200. If it was previously DG and they added the "macro" designation, well I can't offer any advice really. Sorry if it didn't help much.

Travis

[LightRules]

IMO, it isn't worth $200 difference. If the copy you're looking at is a normal-functioning copy, it should really satisfy your 70-200 f2.8 needs. A few years ago I had the non-DG version and it was excellent (sharper than the 70-200f2.8IS at 70mm, softer at 200mm). If the difference in price was, say $50-$100, then it would be a tougher call, but not $200. That is MHO.

[bigcountry]

what if it is $150 difference?

[august23]

where are you finding the non-dg version anyway? i didn't even know they were for sale anymore.

[Travis F]

what if it is $150 difference?

Quite honestly, I wouldn't pay any more for a DG over a non-DG. But that is based on my limited experience as I stated above.

I say keep the $150 or buy another accessory before going for the DG "coating".

Travis

FWIW - This has only been my limited experience with the difference between the two.

[PhotoJourno]

Here is my take on the issue. For Instance, none of my lenses to date have IS, and I have never had a problem with my non-IS lenses. I have taken great photographs, and I am happy I did not have to spend extra money on a feature that I am not using.

Get the point?... We cannot fully appreciate what we do not have.

DG coating is important. Is it $200 worth of importance?... Good question. Personally, I have learned that the tiniest details can make a difference on a lens, scope, or any such finely tuned piece of optics.

I would love to have all Canon L lenses, those with Fluorite elements rather than glass. Such a detail makes a HUGE difference in IQ, and even more in my pocket (hence my lack of fluorite lenses). If I could afford it, I would have it. Glass coating can be pretty important in certain lenses, specially 70-200 with wide aperture values. First define whether you want or need the feature, then worry about the money.

I hope this makes some sense.

[bigcountry]

actually it may be the DG version, just non macro...it does have HSM..

[mrfourcows]

between the non-DG and DG, no.
between the non-DG/DG and DG Macro - maybe. there is a difference in the minimum foucsing distance - 1.8m vs 1.0m - and this may be helpful depending on your needs.

[PhotoJourno]

Been reading a bit more about this subject, found somewhere that DG is also more noticeable in FF tests (improving IQ), due to the sensor size, wider aperture values (on the Sigmas that have them) and the incidence of reflected light.

[angryhampster]

Remember this, theres always a damn good reason companys price their products the way they do.



Because people are ignorant and willing to pay outrageous amounts of money for things that shouldn't cost as much. :lol:

[PhotoJourno]

Because people are ignorant and willing to pay outrageous amounts of money for things that shouldn't cost as much. :lol:


He He, like painting lenses white or putting a fancy red ring around them?.... ;)

[condyk]

The only reason I might say it's worth $200 is for resale value.

He He, like painting lenses white or putting a fancy red ring around them?.... ;)

If the difference in price was, say $50-$100, then it would be a tougher call, but not $200. That is MHO.

Basically what they said ;)

The older version was a fine lens in its own right and I personally wouldn't value better IQ much ... totally fit for purpose as it was. The DG seems to look a bit sleeker tho'. If you need the better MFD then maybe it's worth it. I don't.