Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

[JasonR]

Hey guys I was reading the thread which lens you have used the most and a lot of people seem to use this lens.
I was wondering what people's thoughts are on this lens and if you could show me some sample pics.
I was pricing up the Nikon equivilant and for almost $1000 cheaper the sigma seems like a really good option.

Cheers
Jase

[ameerat42]

I guess it's APO and DG, and I found this price for you to compare:
http://www.ryda.com.au/Sigma-Pentax-...-p/4579961.htm

Don't know anything about it, though. Oh, and here are some specs:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/apo-7...g-os-hsm-sigma
Am.

[Speedway]

I have heard nothing but good reports on this lens. I had one on my shopping list for my 7D but at the last minute was able to go to the canon L.
Cheers
Keith.

[JasonR]

I guess it's APO and DG, and I found this price for you to compare:
http://www.ryda.com.au/Sigma-Pentax-...-p/4579961.htm

That price is the cheapest I have seen.
I'm guessing that doesn't have image stabalization.
Is IS really worth the extra money?

[ameerat42]

You may be right, Jason. The two links seem to be for slightly different versions. I can't see OS written in the "price" link, but the Sigma site link certainly states OS.
It might be worth a call to them to see if they stock the OS version. (???)
Am.

PS. OS/IS? Dunno. NONE of my lenses have it, but I have used (drool) a borrowed 50-500 with OS and I reckon it helped for THAT.

[arthurking83]

[QUOTE=JasonR;1109735.....
Is IS really worth the extra money?[/QUOTE]

YEP! .. sure is.

[Roosta]

Hay Jason,

I use Canon, I'm guessing your with the Nikon brand, either way. Here is a very useful link, albeit, the Sigma lens is mounted to a 1D Canon body and the Nikon 70 - 200 mm on a Nikon D3x

Also a good review here of the Sigma lens.

[Speedway]

$984 from DWI a site sponsor. The non OS one is an older model and considered not as good optically as the OS model.
Cheers
Keith.

[Rattus79]

Hey Jason,

I have the APO EX DG HSM MACRO version, and It's just great. Sharp enough to get paper cuts from, Focus is quick, quiet and responsive, the only real downfall is the weight. but all 2.8 zoom lenses are heavy. (Mine's the non-OS, but I shoot Pentax which has OS in body)

If you want some good examples, you can feel free to check out my flickr stream, or I have a couple of threads on AP that include shots from it too.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...e-Mekong-River
and
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...X-DG-HSM-MACRO

[crafty1tutu]

I bought the non IS version for my Canon 50D whilst in Hong Kong and maybe I just bought a dud, but I had nothing but trouble with the AF. It was in for repairs 14 times in 12 months and was eventually replaced by Sigma, Japan. I had read a lot of reviews about the 150-500 lens that had the same problem that were recalled, so maybe there was a batch of the 70-200 2.8 as well. The new one worked perfectly, but my hubby told me to sell it and he would put the extra in for a Canon version. When the Sigma worked though, the photos were very good.

[JasonR]

Thanks for all the input guys.
I have the 150-500 sigma and I was impressed with that.
Might go into a store and see if I can have a play with one.

[scarlet artemis]

I use the sigma 70-200 as my telefoto and all the shots I have got from it so far are fantastic compared to the quality from the Pentax kit lens which is my other lens atm...tried shooting a photo of the moon with it last night and wasn't impressed with it - but then it was prob just my settings

[dulvariprestige]

I've had both the non-OS and OS models, and the OS version is a much better lens IQ wise, and I also like the zoom ring being at the front of the lens, and yes, stabilisation is worth it

Here are some of my shots with this lens, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulvari...7627504832193/

[arthurking83]

....tried shooting a photo of the moon with it last night and wasn't impressed with it - but then it was prob just my settings

200mm is a tad short for 'full bodied' moon shots. That is, if you want detail in the moon visible and the moon to have any prominence in the framing.

[Wayne63]

$950 from eglobal as well, a site sponsor

[rowdy23]

i have the new is version .
for canon though
i love it
very good lens

[scarlet artemis]

thanks arthur I took a photo of a huge pink moon sitting above the horizon at about 6:30pm before a storm a few nights ago - the moon filled about 1/3 of the frame and I got some detail on it, I was happy with it for a first go...just a heavy lens and pain to lug with tripod

[arthurking83]

LOL!(about the pain to lug around)

But!!! if you want detail in the moon's surface, it's best not to photograph it close to the horizon. The 'thicker' atmosphere causes mayhem with allowing the light forming rays to form sharply onto your sensor!

best time for detail renderings is when the moon is higher .. clear night, cold-ish weather .. no fog/clouds/etc of course.

Moon along the horizon makes for a great image, that's for sure, but not really for achieving great detail in the moon.

I went out last night specifically looking for spots to photograph the 'moonrise' and got somehow distracted along the way.
I left and headed north at about 2-3PM with a few spots in mind, if I don't stumble on some other location, but on the way up, I got distracted with some fires up north, roughly in the area I was kind'a headed.
In the end it turned out that the fire was plenty far enough for me(but too close for comfort for those in it's line of fire! ) ... and along the way I went here and there and didn't really find any spot of any real worth. But the problem was that I totally forgot about the actual moon rise! I was just casually loping about up in the mountains and then I noticed the moon up in the sky .. AHHH! I forgot, and I didn't really find any place nice to stop for a shot of any value. I got off about two or three images for the night. They ended up OK, but not really happy with 'em.

anyhow.. happy hunting.

[Puzz1e]

Definitely get the OS/IS version. The stabilisation is a factor at the longer focal length. As said previously, the IQ is apparently also better on the newer models.

I was tossing up between the Nikon and Sigma for a long time and ended up getting the Nikon since I found a second hand (but flawless/brand new) one at a good price. Otherwise, the Sigma is very nice for the price.

[Epicaricacy]

Great lens, fast focus, sharp. 5diii. Great lens, fast focus, sharp.Mainly used at the moment to photo my kids sport. I did some at the Perth Heat baseball, but am not allowed to post them here due to ticket t & c. Follow this link though...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/epicari...57631680920431