Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM

[Emilv]

Those are nice photos! I like the color so far. But, hows the AF on this one? Especially in low light?

[Emilv]

[quote=placidbabe;10829123]Here are some portraits that have been post processed. Bordered, sharpened and all that jazz

147mm, f/3.5, 1/500 sec. ISO 200


200mm, f/3.5, 1/500 sec. ISO 200


104mm, f/2.8, 1/500 sec. ISO 100


I like you're model! She's so cute!!! She's got a future in modelling! LOL!

[placidbabe]

The AF seems fine to me. I'm yet to test it in low light. I'll get it out tonight and see how it goes.

I like you're model! She's so cute!!! She's got a future in modelling! LOL!

Haha, thanks! It's my little sister, she loves being in front of my camera.



180mm, f/2.8, 1/800 sec. ISO 200


70mm, f/2.8, 1/2500 sec. ISO 200


180mm, f/2.8, 1/125 sec. ISO 100


70mm, f/2.8, 1/2500 sec. ISO 100


200mm, f/2.8, 1/1250 sec. ISO 200


200mm, f/2.8, 1/1000 sec. ISO 100

[placidbabe]

Hand held, all photos are ISO 100 at 157mm straight out of the camera:

f/2.8, 1/800 sec.


f/4, 1/400 sec.


f/8, 1/100 sec.


100% crops

[tkbslc]

Looks like the optics are quite good. Thanks for sharing.

[placidbabe]

147mm, f/4, 1/160 sec. ISO 200


97mm, f/2.8, 1/1000 sec. ISO 400


70mm, f/2.8, 1/800 sec. ISO 400


200 mm, f/3.5, 1/50 sec. ISO 1600

[tkbslc]

well who cares what the reviews say with sharp pics like these!

[KenjiS]

^- indeed, this changes my opinion on it

[placidbabe]

These 2 are straight from the camera:

200mm, f2.8, 1/1600 sec. ISO 100

100% crop


200mm, f/4, 1/640 sec. ISO 100

100% crop



And I suppose this thread needs a moon
200mm, f/8, 1/160 sec. ISO 100.
100% crop; noise ninja + Sharpened in photoshop.

[DStanic]

Not bad.. but is it better then the original 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by DStanic

Not bad.. but is it better then the original 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

i dunno but its changing my opinion of it pretty fast...

[rjx]

Originally Posted by DStanic

Not bad.. but is it better then the original 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

As much as I wanted it to be better than the Canon mk1, or at least "as good," it doesn't appear (to me, based on image samples "I" have seen) that it is. But I want to see side by side comparisons before I pass judgment.

[DStanic]

Originally Posted by rjx

As much as I wanted it to be better than the Canon mk1, or at least "as good," it doesn't appear (to me, based on image samples "I" have seen) that it is. But I want to see side by side comparisons before I pass judgment.

Yeah, the ones in this thread that placidbabe posted which look really good have had PP work done (sharpening as mentioned) the ones straight out of the camera look okay but I don't know if they are any better then the mk1. The school zone sign for example, you can tell a difference in sharpness between f/2.8 and f/4 (is the mk1 really any worse at f2.8?)

[placidbabe]

My situation in buying this lens was obviously a little different from you folks in the US. The price difference was a little more substantial. (Grrr lol)

If you're in a situation where the price difference between the sigma and the canon Mrk II is $1400, I would definitely recommend this lens. It would be worth it to seriously consider it in your options.

If you live in the US and the price difference is only $500, there is no way I could recommend this lens. If it means saving up another 2 more months to buy the canon, do it. The sigma has flaws, as mentioned in the reviews, and you'll be kicking yourself wondering why you just didn't throw an extra $500 in Canons direction. That lens looks like a winner.

Having said that, I'm enjoying this lens so far.
Hopefully I'll be off to the Zoo tomorrow. We'll see if I still have the same feelings towards the lens after that

[tkbslc]

Originally Posted by DStanic

The school zone sign for example, you can tell a difference in sharpness between f/2.8 and f/4 (is the mk1 really any worse at f2.8?)

The mk1 is definitely softer at f2.8 than 4. About 10% according to photozone and slrgear.

At some point, the mk1 is going to not be available new. And so then you have the choice of a used Canon lens or a brand new Sigma lens. I would imagine the IS unit is better in the Sigma as well.(Canon one is a bit dated). I would also imagine the price will settle a bit lower over time much like the non-OS sigmas. So that's the choice. A used Canon vs a new Sigma with what looks like similar real-world performance.