Hi, I'm a newbie and have a Q? (Sigma 70-200 2.8)

[Matthew_h]

Hi

I'm new to to here so please go easy ;)

I have recently bought a 300D Black kit with battery grip and USM 18-55 lense to replace my infrequently used EOS 600.

I have the USM 80-200 F4.5 lense but could really do with something similar that goes to F2.8 for my main passion of motorsport.

I have seen the Canon L 70-200 F2.8 but at £1500 it is a good bit out of budget so have been looking at the Sigma equivalent at £5-600. Again it is 70-200 F2.8 and seems very similar.

Just wondered if anyone has any experience of using it and can tell me whether it would be a good lense.

I'm no pro so absolute quality is not essential but I spending that much moeny I don't want to get a bad piece of kit.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

[lomond]

I don't have the lens but if you do a search you'll find a few threads.

Here's one. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54840&highlight=sigma+70-200+F2.8

[Cadwell]

Hi Matthew, welcome to the forum.

The Sigma 70-200 EX lens has a good reputation...

You don't say what kind of motorsport you follow, but I find 200mm a little short for most UK race tracks. Perhaps you should be thinking a little longer.

[KennyG]

Matthew, I am just up the road from you in Leeds and I am a motorsport photographer. Also, my wife owned that Sigma lens until recently, so I have a good idea of what it is like.

200mm is too short for use at Croft or Oulton Park, and miles, miles too short for Donington. You really need to get up to 300mm or 400mm. The problem is at these focal lengths large aperture lenses (2.8 for example) are very expensive and probably outside your budget.

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM (important that HSM bit) isn't that bad a lens, and used with a 2x converter will give you 140-400mm at F5.6 which is about borderline as the light drops. Without the converter it will be very useful around the paddock.

Whenever you buy a new lens, test it out to make sure focus is accurate. Unfortunately these days QC does not seem to be what it was. Do it before you leave the shop, or if you buy on-line make sure it is from somewhere like Warehouse Express who have an excellent returns policy.

Get yourself the Sigma with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's. In bright conditions you can happily snap away with the 2x and if the light drops use the 1.4x (losing a bit of focal length of course) and without TC's still have yourself a good 2.8 lens away from trackside. Those that know me will be shocked by my Sigma recommendation as I am 100% Canon, but if you have a budget to meet this combination will do what you want. Just don't buy the lens without the TC's as you will wish you could get a lot closer to the action than you are allowed.

[Matthew_h]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the replies. I have done a search now and found a good number of threads on this lense. Bit of a novice mistake not searching first but I had to start somewhere.

Cadwell and Kenny, most of the shots I take are at trackdays as opposed to proper events and as such you can get a lot closer to the action and with the 1.6x equivalent focal length thing on the 300D doesn't that mean I would have an effective 320mm lense. Is that right?

I was at Oulton just before Christmas and got some reasonable shots with the kit lense (from the inside of Lodge) and some not so good ones from near the top of Cascades with my 80-200 but because the maximum aperture was to small I was struggling with the light. That's why I thought the Sigma would be a good choice. I also thought that the larger maximum aperture would allow more depth of field options so I could use that rather than just panning.

Does this all sound sensible?

[Mogwyth]

Hi Mathew

At the end of the day the Canon 70-200 is the best f/2.8, but if like me you can't justify the cost or simply can't afford it, then the Sigma is a very creditable second best escpecialy when you consider the price difference. It's 95% of the quaility for less than 50% of the price.

I use mine with 1.4Tc and I am more than happy with the results, in fact I hope to add a 2x once I have brought a new tripod. I have the Sigma ex tc but I believe the Tamron?? is cheaper and as good, there is a comparison somewhere, if I remember where I'll post a link it may have been on this site.

[Cadwell]

I can understand why you want an f/2.8. The light can be terrible at some meetings.

There are only 3 places where my 70-200 regualrly comes out of the bag to shoot track action. 1) the infield at Druids (Brands Hatch). 2) Camp Corner (Castle Combe) and 3) Shooting truck racing at Pembrey. Otherwise it's really too short. I've never shot at Croft, but trackside at Oulton I used the 100-400L and Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. At Silverstone you need a tripod equiped EOS mount variant of the Hubble and even that's not big enough at Rockingham (I have a 1.6 crop and a 1.3 crop camera).

Either look at longer glass or takes Ken's advice and budget for the Sigma 70-200mm lens plus some TCs.

[KennyG]

with the 1.6x equivalent focal length thing on the 300D doesn't that mean I would have an effective 320mm lense. Is that right?

No, a 200mm lens is a 200mm lens. You have a '1.6' crop of the full frame from a 200mm lens. Trust me, 200mm is too short for anywhere other than the paddock or pit lane. Well, maybe the outside of Old Hall when you have a full BTCC grid heading for you, but it is very short for track action.

The inside of Lodge isn't a good place, there are far better. Click on my profile, send me a PM and I we can take this conversation off-line.

I don't have your issues of where to shoot from as I am an accredited photographer for a lot of the UK circuits, but I do know my way around the public areas and can give you some good advice.

[attu]

Ditch the tarmac and come out into the forests for some Rallying, then the 70-200 will be ideal :)
As for the Sigma, is a good alternative to the Canon if you cant afford it.

Andy

[ShutteringFocus]

People around here will push the Canon becuase the know what L lenses can do...and I'll admit...they are sharper.

But tell you what.

I have the Sigma and I have no problems with it. Its an amazing lens and I love it to death. As far as the sharpness thing goes...If the lens is in focus and the subject is stoped by the shutter speed (two factors that are needed nomater what lens you have) then the shots with the sigma will be sharp.

Canon L doesnt mean "sharp as a tack no matter what." Although sometimes it seems as though some people think so...haha

The sigma is awesome!

Go for it!

[ron chappel]

Hi matthew,welcome to the forum!
Just one thing i can be helpfull with - that 80-200 usm lens you have is a particularly dodgey model ,it's about as bad as modern lenses get.
You *will* be happy with the sigma 70-200/2.8;) :D

Here is a comparison of the 70-200 lenses.

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

note there is a 75-300 lens there that seems pretty good.In actual use it doesn't do that well and is too slow to focus for motorsport