Sigma Zooms

[smokeslide]

I'm interested in the Sigma 70-200 and 100-300 lenses. I'd like to have a lens that can double for my hobbies of shooting some college football and basketball and also a decent length for some bird and wildlife stuff, probably with a 1.4x extender.

I've read good reviews on both the Sigmas overall but I do have some concerns with both as well. It seems that on most reviews the 70-200 is described as pretty soft at 2.8, much more so than the Canon version, and doesn't really shine until 4.0 and above. Also, the AF is usually described as noticeably slower than the Canon 70-200. I am able to borrow a Canon 70-200 when I shoot basketball but would prefer my own lens, but if the Sigma AF is that much slower and the 2.8 setting is too soft there's not much point.

As far as the 100-300, it seems ideal in having a good length for wildlife and stuff, especially once an extender is added and a constant 4.0 is acceptable for football and basketball usually. However, I'm concerned that hand holding that lens and getting sharp basketball pictures would be pretty difficult.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these concerns that can help convince me one way or the other?

[Canuck]

I'm interested in the Sigma 70-200 and 100-300 lenses. I'd like to have a lens that can double for my hobbies of shooting some college football and basketball and also a decent length for some bird and wildlife stuff, probably with a 1.4x extender.

I've read good reviews on both the Sigmas overall but I do have some concerns with both as well. It seems that on most reviews the 70-200 is described as pretty soft at 2.8, much more so than the Canon version, and doesn't really shine until 4.0 and above. Also, the AF is usually described as noticeably slower than the Canon 70-200. I am able to borrow a Canon 70-200 when I shoot basketball but would prefer my own lens, but if the Sigma AF is that much slower and the 2.8 setting is too soft there's not much point.

As far as the 100-300, it seems ideal in having a good length for wildlife and stuff, especially once an extender is added and a constant 4.0 is acceptable for football and basketball usually. However, I'm concerned that hand holding that lens and getting sharp basketball pictures would be pretty difficult.

Does anyone have any thoughts on these concerns that can help convince me one way or the other?

It is true that you get better lowlight performance w/ an F2.8 than F4, but the cost is about 1/3 to 1/2 more for the F2.8 version. No the question to you is how much are you willing to spend. That would help me rule out some lenses. If money is no big deal, I have a few recommendations; if not then look at the Sigma EX HSM line. If they don't have that on them, they are best wherever they are. I'd have a 384mm-960mm F5.6 lens that way.

For starters, in wildlife, I have found 300mm to be fine as you get a 480mm effective lens w/ the 10D/300D. I have a deer pic floating somewhere on the depths of the HDs I have that was taken in Scotland. If you are feeling like sticking a 2x TC on there you get a 960mm all said an done, and it becomes an F5.6 if you start w/ an F2.8 lens. I have kicked around that idea with the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX lens I have. I also recon you could look at the Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3EX lens for dialling long distance. The only downside of that is that you will need a tripod and possibly bump up the ISO. I have never shot with that lens and it might be ok for what you're doing.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I never found the AF on the Sigma 70-200mm to be slow.. it is not as fast as the Canon.. but it is pretty peppy. My impression of the Sigma 100-300 f/4 oddly was that it's AF was even faster.. however I only tried it breifly... it is a newer design, so it is certainly possible that it is improved.

It does seem that some fo the Sigmas are softer at f/2.8.. but again,. I never felt mine was soft.. I was quite happy with it.

..but,. I do think the Canon 70-200mm with IS is better.. the question is.. price wise.. how much better?

[eddylush]

What does peppy mean?

[Zeke]

What does peppy mean?

I thought a 'peppy' was a penis. :shock:

[Leszek]

Well, I have Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM. Never noticed any particular softness at 2.8. This lens may be slightly softer than Canon at 2.8 at the short end (70mm), but it is still very sharp there.
If someone is obsessed with MTF numbers it may be of importance, but the pictures are superb (even at 2.8, 70mm).
The HSM is fast. I do not know how it compares with Canon 70-200/2.8 USM, but it is fast.
Enough said, it is a VERY GOOD lens, and a bargain. 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

It means fast... it has "pep"

You guys are too young.. :wink:

[msvadi]

I just saw 2 80-200 2.8L in exccellent condition for $700-750 at keh.com. I think it's a good alternative to sigma. If you interested, grab it fast, it won't stay there long. They also have several 28-70 2.8L. They arrived today. I'm sure they'll be gone within a couple of days.

[Tom W]

Well, I have Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM. Never noticed any particular softness at 2.8. This lens may be slightly softer than Canon at 2.8 at the short end (70mm), but it is still very sharp there.
If someone is obsessed with MTF numbers it may be of importance, but the pictures are superb (even at 2.8, 70mm).
The HSM is fast. I do not know how it compares with Canon 70-200/2.8 USM, but it is fast.
Enough said, it is a VERY GOOD lens, and a bargain. 8)

I have that particular Sigma lens, and I agree. Its pretty nice wide open, and also works well with the 1.4X teleconverter.

As another respected forum member occasionally says, if its Sigma, look for "EX" and "HSM" - its generally good stuff.

[DC]

FWIW, I use the 100-300 with a 1.4x and it's very good and still tack sharp.

[smokeslide]

I just saw 2 80-200 2.8L in exccellent condition for $700-750 at keh.com. I think it's a good alternative to sigma. If you interested, grab it fast, it won't stay there long. They also have several 28-70 2.8L. They arrived today. I'm sure they'll be gone within a couple of days.

But isn't the 80-200 noticeably slower with its AF speed compared to the Sigma? I understand it's one of the sharper Canons ever but is the AF speed fast enough for college athletics? Like I mentioned earlier, I have a Canon 70-200 L that I borrow for games but I'd like a zoom of my own and yet I don't want to spend $700-800 for one that won't give me comparable results. Buying a Canon 70-200 for well over a thousand dollars isn't an option now either.

[msvadi]

I really can't say, because I never used it (or 70-200 L). But I know it has an excellent reputation. Some people claim that it's sharper than modern 70-200 L lenses. Anyway, one is already gone, but KEH.com still has another one in stock ;)
Did you consider 200mm f/2.8 L?

I just saw 2 80-200 2.8L in exccellent condition for $700-750 at keh.com. I think it's a good alternative to sigma. If you interested, grab it fast, it won't stay there long. They also have several 28-70 2.8L. They arrived today. I'm sure they'll be gone within a couple of days.

But isn't the 80-200 noticeably slower with its AF speed compared to the Sigma? I understand it's one of the sharper Canons ever but is the AF speed fast enough for college athletics? Like I mentioned earlier, I have a Canon 70-200 L that I borrow for games but I'd like a zoom of my own and yet I don't want to spend $700-800 for one that won't give me comparable results. Buying a Canon 70-200 for well over a thousand dollars isn't an option now either.

[billhercus]

I use the 100-300 f4 EX - very happy - and found for the smaller bird shots the 1.4TC a real help. The combination really sorts out 95% of tele requirements going as it does from an equivalent 160 - 670 and the price is right - I think determining a quality difference between that combination and the equivalent in L lenses would be something of a challenge.

[aam1234]

As mentioned here, if it is an "EX" lens then you are in the safe side. Some even compare the "EX" lenses with canon's "L" line without the added expense. I know I will be following that advice.

[Canuck]

As mentioned here, if it is an "EX" lens then you are in the safe side. Some even compare the "EX" lenses with canon's "L" line without the added expense. I know I will be following that advice.

Yes and also add the HSM (HyperSonic Motor) much like USM (UltraSonic Motor) that Canon has for AF.

[kahfluie]

I've read good reviews on both the Sigmas overall but I do have some concerns with both as well. It seems that on most reviews the 70-200 is described as pretty soft at 2.8, much more so than the Canon version, and doesn't really shine until 4.0 and above. Also, the AF is usually described as noticeably slower than the Canon 70-200. I am able to borrow a Canon 70-200 when I shoot basketball but would prefer my own lens, but if the Sigma AF is that much slower and the 2.8 setting is too soft there's not much point.



I've got the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX HSM and from my experience I can tell you that it isn't soft at 2.8. I do a lot of indoor concert photography so 2.8 is where I'm at with it most of the time, unless the lighting is massively good. In terms of the autofocus speed... I certainly isn't slow. I have the Canon 85mm f1.8 USM and I can safely say that the speed of the autofocus is about the same as the 85mm - and it doesn't hunt and peck too often, even in low lilght.

Additionally... when I shoot basketball, I find myself using the 50mm f1.8 or the 85mm f1.8 more than anything. Some say I should use the 70-200, but I just park myself under the hoop and shoot away with those two lenses and get very good photos. Of course I am talking about high school games where the lighting pretty much stinks and the use of flash many times is not allowed.

The following are examples of shots taken with the Sigma 70-200 at f2.8.

http://photography.debbielou.com/coppermine/albums/concerts/avalon_030504/crw_1467sm_std.jpg

http://photography.debbielou.com/coppermine/albums/concerts/Mike_Childers_031904/crw_2066_std.jpg