Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM lens

[D.E.P]

Hi All, i'm thinking of purchasing Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM lens, i'm mainly shot indoor/ourdoor portraits, kids in groups & birthday etc...
is this a good lens to get, i don't mind the weight at all as long as it's a sharp lens that's all i'm concern. at the moment i'm using the tokina lens 28-800mm ATX-Pro f2.8, i find it the picture is very soft not as sharp. can someone give me some advice pls, thanks.


http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k64/dep_pro/DSC_0110.jpg

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k64/dep_pro/DSC_0029.jpg

[primoz]

It's nice lens, especially when you consider price. I had older (non-dg) version before (I changed it for Canon mainly due CPS and some other non-lens connected things) and I was happy with it. It survived quite few years of daily (ab)use in worse conditions you can get. It was as sharp and as fast as Canon is, and not having IS wasn't issue for me, since I never need it. If you don't need IS, and you are ready to trade white color for about 50% of price, it's good way to go :)

[Lightstream]

The Canon is nice.

[Mr. Clean]

I love mine. It's work flawlessly since day one on every body I've owned. I wouldn't hesitate to own the Sigma version over the Canon non-IS version any day. Money well spent I think!

[kbreit]

I've done some shooting with my non-DG version and am happy with it. You're getting a sharp f2.8 for quite a bit less than the Canon version. Here are a few of my favorite pictures from the 70-200. Definitely a capable lens.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/462276213_6dec605a44.jpg?v=0 (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=462276213&size=l)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/432897836_06a6ab80b3.jpg?v=0 (http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=432897836&size=o)

[Croasdail]

The Canon is nice.

Ah.... yes... that answers how good the Sigma is ..... very helpful.

I have both the Canon and the Sigma. No real differences between the two. Sigma sharper from 70-140, the Canon being sharper at the long end. But stopped down, really no difference in the final image to speak of. If you can't get the image with the Sigma, it's not the lenses fault.

[adamo99]

I had the older, non-DG version, and sold it to get the 70-200 2.8L. The Sigma was every bit as good as the L lens, and hundreds of dollars less expensive. Maybe I just had a ridiculously sharp copy, but I wouldn't hesitate to get another one - especially the newer DG version.

[kbreit]

I had the older, non-DG version, and sold it to get the 70-200 2.8L. The Sigma was every bit as good as the L lens, and hundreds of dollars less expensive. Maybe I just had a ridiculously sharp copy, but I wouldn't hesitate to get another one - especially the newer DG version.

Why did you go to the 70-200 L?

[adamo99]

Why did you go to the 70-200 L?

I heard so many good things about the Canon lens, and was expecting it to be even better than the Sigma I had. I'm not suggesting that I'm not pleased with the Canon, but I don't see why it's so much more expensive. The Sigma is a fine product, and I wouldn't hesitate to use one again.

[Rudy M.]

You will really like the Sigma lens. I have the non-DG and with the money I saved over the Canon, I got both Sigma teleconverters. The lens will autofocus with either TC on my 20D, and I find myself with the 1.4x on the lens quite often. When I was looking at this lens, I tried it outside of the camera shop. I got an "Error 99" issue on my 20D with the Canon IS version, but not with the Sigma! Iv'e had my Sigma for a bit over two years and only have had a few occasions where I wish I had IS--but not $800.00 worth of wishing! I even considered the Canon non-IS which is a very nice lens, but I did not like the white and like having more green in my pocket! The black Sigma, even though is very big, especially with a lens hood in use, does not attract as much attention as the big white Canon lenses--I don't have to camo it up when I am out hunting, and I "blend" easier in town. If you get either lens, get at least the 1.4x T-con. It makes a really nice constant f/4 lens that is quite long, yet fast on your camera. It's amazing the shots you can get hand-holding this lens bare or even with T-cons on it. I have even stacked both T-cons and it works. Poor IQ but makes a dandy spotting scope at the rifle range! This is the 2nd best lens Sigma makes. Their best lens is the 120-300 f/2.8 and the 3rd best is the 30mm f/1.4 (other's opinions may vary!).

[D.E.P]

Thanks to all POTN Members, for your tips & advice. had placed an order for the Sigma Lens, i can't wait to get hold of it :)

[DocFrankenstein]

Hmm

Sigma is much less contrasty that the canon and wide open is much softer. Much more prone to flare also.

If you can go with canon, it's money well spent. Especially the IS version, but the non IS is better.

I know I'll upgrade for weather sealing and IS eventually.