70-200 2.8 IS II is here

mrmarks wrote in post #9648135
The 24-105 f2.8 IS could also be worth waiting for

So "The Brick" will become the..."the anvil"?

I've tried two 100-300mm f4's and neither could match a Canon 300mm f4 wide open. Sure below 250mm or dropped to f5.6 but that's a big difference. Also close to MFD and IQ dropped noticably. Flare control was pretty shocking too. It's also far too heavy for what it does. A 70-300 IS lens from Canon offers better IQ, less weight, less size and a sweet IS system. What's the point of an f4 lens that's soft wide open. With a 1.4x TC is was pretty bad under 3m, I didn't rate the IQ that much. My old 135-400 used to out resolve it...go figure. A Canon 100-400 IS L is a far better lens in every respect, as is the 300/f4IS L. It's AF was pertty fast, but it seemed to miss focus sometimes, or even fail to lock at all. It also had the most stupid looking hood that I have ever seen...it was massive!

I had a Siggi 70-200/2.8 EX DG and it was very good optically. But again it's AF and IQ were quite poor close to MFD. But over 3m and it was pin sharp and a joy to use. Although I found the AF not as accurate as Canon's. I found it's AF to be the quickest Siggi that i've tried. Neither this or the 100-300/4 have any place in my bag any more.
Neither can hold a candle to a 85IIL, 135L or 200/2.8IIL, the latter is outrageously good IQ. If I was going to get a 70-200, it would be a canon 70-200/f4 IS L...no question.

The Siggi 24mm does not even come close to the 24IIL...trust me I've owned and used both...guess which one I sold.

The 300/2.8 is a great lens and great value too, but optically it really pales next to the Canon 300/2.8 IS L.

The Siggi 12-24mm is pretty much unmatched on FF, It's a stunning lens. but it's pretty shocking wide open. F8-f11 is where this lens shines.

Actually, I've found the Siggi 150mm macro great in the f8 range, but stop down to f16 and the two copies I've tried got pretty soft. I use a Siggi 180mm macro and I'm very happy with it, except that I get over and under exposures af certain f stops...a comon issue with this lens.

The 500mm f4.5 is a great lens and very cheap....but it is not the equal to the Canon 500/f4 in three ways. One, putting TC's on the Siggi often don't work on some of the newer Canon DSLRs. Two, the f4.5 is a pain if you want to use a 2x TC and use a 1D series to AF....you can't, where as the Canon version you can. Giving a 1000mm f8 or a 700mm f5.6 with a 1.4. Lastly, it doesn't have an IS system.

So while I have enjoyed using Sigma, they are 2nd best in nearly every area. Optically, they can be strong. But I have serious doubts about their HSM's AF system compared to Canon's FTM/USM. Plus, most of my Sigma's have had to go back to Sigma due to appaling AF inaccuracies. I have also had more failures with my Siggi gear than my Canon L gear. The Siggi 12-24 is still a unique lens (wide than the Nikkor 14-24 by a noticable amount).

The 50-500mm is quite and impressive lens, except it's pretty soft wide open from 350+. In impressive range, but again dogged by poor QC.

As much as I like Siggi, I just wish that they would sort out their QC and build. I also wish that they would ditch that XXXX awfull grey paint that flakes off after 2 years...this is what finally did it for me...my lenses started to look quite shoddy after very little time at all. The old Siggi finish (a few years pre-DG) were far more durable, looking like a black version of Canon's L paint.

The 120-300/2.8 is a pretty odd ball lens. On paper it sounds like a good idea, except that I found it to be soft wide open. Drop a stop and it was fine...but again what's the point of having f2.8 if it's unusable. I found it's AF to be a lot slower than the 100-300 or their 70-200 and I also found it to be a bit erratic. Sometimes it nailed the focus, other times it was way out. The model i tried back focussed a lot too. It's big, heavy and to be honest...I was expecting a realy treat with this lens and I was quite dissapointed with it.

KenjiS wrote in post #9646715
Yes actually, Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 pretty much bests all contenders, the only one that stands against it is the Nikon, and even that isnt quite as good

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is actually a fantastic lens, VERY quick focusing and its optical quality matches the Canon 300mm f/4L prime, Which is not a joke..Coupled with the fact its not really any bigger its only negative is the lack of image stabilization..but there is no other 100-300 f/4 zoom out there and for sports and that its a terrific alternate to the Canon 100-400 if you need more reach

Sigma's 150-500 is 90% the lens the 100-400 is with an extra 100mm of reach, excellent AF and a superior image stabilization, a good copy is easily the equal of the 100-400 at f/8 (And not shabby at f/6.3) and its quite a bit cheaper....

Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM II is another fantastic lens, compared to the non-IS Canon its pretty much even, neither one of them has a huge advantage optically or in terms of focus speed and accuracy...except the Sigma is cheaper, and it focuses closer, and its black

Sigma's 150mm f/2.8 macro is unmatched, tack sharp, and its an interesting macro choice that sits between a 180 f/3.5 and a 100mm f/2.8, offering more speed than the first and more length than the second...

Sigma has a 12-24mm full frame lens, Rediculously stupid-wide, ok its not the sharpest out there but who gives a crap if it needs to be used at f/8 to be sharp? its 12mm, and full frame

Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 is awesome as well, sharp, awesome bokeh, awesome colors...its only bad point is its MFD stinks

Sigma has a 24 f/1.8 that compares favorably to the 24L....except it can be had for under $300 used..and it focuses rediculously close...

Looking used, Sigma's 300mm f/2.8 is fantastic value, its VERY close to the 300mm f/2.8 IS and thats NO joke, No complaint, and certainly nothing to be ashamed of, new its a tough sell because its not that much cheaper, but found used they can go for under $2000...and at that price, its a steal

Same with the 500mm f/4.5 of theirs, Superb lens, every bit the equal of Canon's 500mm primes except at bargain prices used...

I could go on and on and on, but yes, Sigma has a lot of fantastic lenses in their lineup...

+1 on sigma's QC. It is what made me not bother with their 50 1.4

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9648723
+1 on sigma's QC. It is what made me not bother with their 50 1.4

Sigma doesnt like ninjas

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9648723
+1 on sigma's QC. It is what made me not bother with their 50 1.4

+ 1
ALso what turned me from sigma all together.

How would you guys rank Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma in terms of lens quality?

Any one knows RRP in Australia for this lens

Persephone wrote in post #9648179
So "The Brick" will become the..."the anvil"?

I don`t know why people think it will be bigger because of the IS.
I don`t see a difference between the 70-200 F4 or F2.8 with IS or without IS
I think if the 24-70 changes it will be very minor.

mrmarks wrote in post #9648135
The 24-105 f2.8 IS could also be worth waiting for

Kris_2020 wrote in post #9650131
I don`t know why people think it will be bigger because of the IS.
I don`t see a difference between the 70-200 F4 or F2.8 with IS or without IS
I think if the 24-70 changes it will be very minor.

The reason why it would become bigger is because he said 24-105 2.8 IS, not 24-70 2.8 IS :P Increaseing the 105 to 2.8 would make it much bigger!

Celestron wrote in post #9643967
I can't believe this thread on the OPs' opening statement is now 58 pages long .

Yeah, who would have guessed?

GavinTing wrote in post #9650390
The reason why it would become bigger is because he said 24-105 2.8 IS, not 24-70 2.8 IS :P Increaseing the 105 to 2.8 would make it much bigger!

I thought he was referring to "The Brick"

Kris_2020 wrote in post #9651044
I thought he was referring to "The Brick"

if you look at the post I was quoting, said person wondered about the 24-105mm f/2.8. I was merely making a joke about how we'd probably nickname that lens "The Boulder" if the 24-70mm was already considered "The Brick".

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #9648723
+1 on sigma's QC. It is what made me not bother with their 50 1.4

haha same here. I would buy a already calibrated used copy however.

Why this hell has this turned into a thread about Sigma lenses? Who cares?

Haha.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9654696
haha same here. I would buy a already calibrated used copy however.

I might do too. I couldn't be bothered playing the "buy and get calibrated" game.