Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX opinions?

[Black5]

Thinking of buying the Sigma 70-200mm EX f/2.8 for my 350D.

Would like an 'L', but can't justify the extra at the moment.

How does the Sigma compare?

Oh, using it mostly for sports stuff.

[_dobbo_]

It's next on my list of wants - Nikon version obviously but basically the same I believe.

Simpo has one I think, amongst others.

[simpo two]

_dobbo_ said:

Simpo has one I think, amongst others.

Simpo does, and is delighted with it. I suppose for twice the money the Nikon/Canon equivalents must do something better, but the Sigma mint SH for £350 made much more sense. The focusing is very fast and works in very low light so it's great for wedding parties and conferences.

Good for hand to hand combat too

>> Edited by simpo two on Friday 7th October 13:43

[monkeyhanger]

Got the Canon version a few months ago.

It's an excellent lens and i'd recommend it to anyone. The general opinion is that it's as close to a Canon L as you can get without paying silly money.

Silverstone Pitlane in the dark...



Porsche GT3 in the Wet from the Britcar 24 Hrs



And something a little more interesting in daylight, f2.8 + ISO 100.



>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Friday 7th October 14:42

[monkeyhanger]

Oh what the hell...

1 more for the boys



I got mine for £569 from www.buyacamera.co.uk but it's currently listed at £589 on there. You also get a 4 year guarantee with the Sigma.

[monkeyhanger]

The focus is fast enough to track one of these babies...

This shot is heavily cropped as 200mm is really too short for airshows..



Convinced yet?

[simpo two]

I'd agree, it's not the ideal lens for airshows - a fairly standard 70-300ish is more suitable: longer range, cheaper and you don't need f2.8.

[monkeyhanger]

simpo two said:

I'd agree, it's not the ideal lens for airshows - a fairly standard 70-300ish is more suitable: longer range, cheaper and you don't need f2.8.

The Yoirkshire Airshow was the first chance i had to test it, and after dropping almost 600 notes on a lens i was damn well going to use it

It does however show that it's a very nice lens, but i've got the 100-400L to go with it now

[Black5]

It looks like this could be a very good choice.

Fast enough for motorsport, sharp and a decent price.

So why do people buy the Canon (non IS)?

What about adding a x2 convertor?

[monkeyhanger]

Black5 said:

It looks like this could be a very good choice. Fast enough for motorsport, sharp and a decent price. So why do people buy the Canon (non IS)? What about adding a x2 convertor?

Canon Non IS...money to burn, snob value...i'd still have one though

As for the 2x, i wouldn't bother with it, they're only really any good on a fast prime lens and even then only if desperate. If you need the length go for the 100-400IS or the Sigma 50-500.

The 1.4x should be ok, but the DG version is nigh on impossible to get hold of in the UK.

[simpo two]

Black5 said:

What about adding a x2 convertor?

You can; Sigma make x1.4 and x2. They also convert a very good fast lens into a rather ordinary slower one

[Black5]

mmmm . . . was thinking this might be a good 'value' way of getting 400mmm too.

[poah]

the lens gets my vote. it's not so good near it's closest focusing distance at F2.8 but very good beyond that. once you go out from the close focus its very good at 2.8 I use it at F4 mainly for car shots. f2.8 is not always required but nice to have.

[HankScorpio]

I used to have this and liked it a lot, also had the 1.4 and 2.0 TC's.

Examples are at www.hankscorpio.net/misc/zoomtest

all on auto and handheld.

[Tank Slapper]

Great lens. A bargain if you get a good condition 2nd hand one, as they don't tend to hold their value too well.

[Black5]

Time to find one and pop hand in pocket me thinks!

[monkeyhanger]

Don't forget there are 2 versions..

The New "DG" version, optimised for digital cameras so they say, and the older Non DG Version, which is still available in the stores...

Also be aware if buying used that some much older non-DG versions needed a re-chip to make them work on the Canon Digitals.

Buyer Beware etc. If you've got the cash, buy new and get the DG version.

>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Friday 7th October 20:45

[simpo two]

monkeyhanger said:

The New "DG" version, optimised for digital cameras so they say

I'm always rather sceptical when they say that. The only justification for that, as far as I can think, is a lens that doesn't project a full frame image - ie a complete redesign and theoretically smaller and cheaper. Not better, just different.

monkeyhanger said:

Also be aware if buying used that some much older non-DG versions needed a re-chip to make them work on the Canon Digitals.

Good point, it's the same for Nikon. Sigma can tell you if you need a rechip from the serial number. IIRC it's £35 + postage IIRC, so not the end of the world.

[HankScorpio]

TheNiceManFromSigma said:

The new DG version has specially coated optics to reduce flare and ghosting when used on Digital cameras. The new DG version has DG on both the actual lens and the box.

[simpo two]

Yes but don't forget the Saxo. I used to work in a marketing department and I know what techno-distorting babble they cook up to please the trade and punters. Of course in those days it was 'turbo', not 'digital'.

My lens doesn't say 'DG' on it, but by a fantastic slice of luck it works on a DSLR... Phew, I'm so lucky my photos don't come out black or soemthing!

In short, if you see a good SH one for sale, don't be put off it doesn't say 'DG'.

>> Edited by simpo two on Friday 7th October 21:53