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

your shots made me drool, i dont know that this lens is this good!!! i got my own copy of this lens today and i cant wait to get home and try it!! ill be sharing some pictures soon!

At 2.8

Testing the Sigma APO 1.4x EX DG with the 5D mkII. 221mm, ISO 400, 1/500 sec @ f/4(reported), on monopod, OS on. Definately better than the results I was getting with the 50D!

Bob

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hotbobs/7205969​360/

I can't wait to get mine back.. Bought it from another member here and had some AF issues with it cycling the focus back and forth, sent it in to Mack who forwarded it to Sigma... After a lot of searching for the original purchase receipt so they would honor the warranty, Mack covered it. $285 repair for an AF zoom sensor and cleaning. I should get it back on Monday! Can't wait!

My friend's dog at the park:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/54317866@N06/7​185757752/

Hi guys, I really need your help. I had 70-200 f/4.0L USM, but the lack of IS and f/2.8 often makes me limited. Now I'm ready to upgrade to f/2.8 with OS/IS, honestly I don't have $2200 for the new L's, and my mother won't let me buying used stuff (in this context the old 70-200 f/2.8L IS). So it seems that Sigma 70-200 OS is my only option right now, and I'm keeping my 70-200 f/4.0L (again, my mom won't let me sell it. As I will use it mainly wide open, will I actually notice a lot of softness on the edge? I had been researching for a week now, and I know it won't be as sharp as the L's, but is the softness become anoying? I'm not a pixel peeper, and I'm fine with the sharpness on the edge of my 70-200 f/4.0L. And what about the AF, some report it having front focus, I'm fine with it as I had MA on 5D II, but is it consistent? Thanks for all your help, if everything is going as expected I will buy this lens next week.

KVN Photo wrote in post #14449315
Hi guys, I really need your help. I had 70-200 f/4.0L USM, but the lack of IS and f/2.8 often makes me limited. Now I'm ready to upgrade to f/2.8 with OS/IS, honestly I don't have $2200 for the new L's, and my mother won't let me buying used stuff (in this context the old 70-200 f/2.8L IS). So it seems that Sigma 70-200 OS is my only option right now, and I'm keeping my 70-200 f/4.0L (again, my mom won't let me sell it. As I will use it mainly wide open, will I actually notice a lot of softness on the edge? I had been researching for a week now, and I know it won't be as sharp as the L's, but is the softness become anoying? I'm not a pixel peeper, and I'm fine with the sharpness on the edge of my 70-200 f/4.0L. And what about the AF, some report it having front focus, I'm fine with it as I had MA on 5D II, but is it consistent? Thanks for all your help, if everything is going as expected I will buy this lens next week.

I've had this lens for a couple weeks now and have really put it through the paces. It performs a little better in terms of IQ on my 5DII than on the 50D. For me, it needed no micro-focus on the 5DII and a little on the 50D. I'm quite sure the 50D is to blame for that.

I am confident enough in shooting at f/2.8 with the 5DII but I will probably always stop down 1/2 stop on the 50D.

It produces very nice 8x10 prints at f/2.8. The photo of the dogs above was shot at f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC and that would print out beautifully in a large print. It is a good lens; probably great for the price range. I think it can be tough to be fair when you know there is something better out there but that Canon mkII is $1000 more money. I think keeping the f/4 is a good idea. The f/2.8 is big and heavy and I almost always use a monopod with it. I had the f/4L IS and it was easy to handhold all day long.

Bob

Afternoon all natural light - cropped

200mm
f/4
1/200
iso 100

At f/2.8 the lens is a tad soft - This taken at the same time as the above with center point on the orange flower in the center; very usable however at f/2.8 unless one pixel peeps. To me the $1,000 delta between the Sigma and the Canon is not warrented for my use.

200mm
f/2.8
1/160
iso 100

I only have to notch mine back to f3.2 to get it to produce good sharp images.

It is a little soft at 2.8, but usable in a pinch.

But then most lenses are a little soft wide open.

The 70-200 2.8 MK II seems to have solved that problem.

But its another £1000.00 and its white...

Hey all,

I must say I do love my Sigma, but have opted to upgrade to the Canon for (hopefully) slightly quicker AF. You don't see many of these Sigma lenses for sale second hand, what kind of money are they worth in absolutely mint condition, literally not one mark on it? (£)

Cheers

StopAndStarePhotograph​y wrote in post #14450914
Hey all,

I must say I do love my Sigma, but have opted to upgrade to the Canon for (hopefully) slightly quicker AF. You don't see many of these Sigma lenses for sale second hand, what kind of money are they worth in absolutely mint condition, literally not one mark on it? (£)

Cheers

One just auctioned on Ebay for $980 US yesterday.

Bob

Ok, that's about £620. I'll be advertising it on here shortly once I've taken pics, along with a 2 x TC which has been used all of 4 times (I personally don't really need 400mm of reach on a crop).

Thanks for the info

I am getting mine on Monday from B & H. Replacing Canon 2.8L II.

But, now, I am having second thoughts about the move.

Why the downgrade?