70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM AF Macro

Aussieroo · December 13, 2006

I recently bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM AF Macro Lens after looking at the Canon 70-200 F2.8 L series non IS and the Canon f4 70-200 and I have to say I am extreemly happy with the Sigma. I have used the Canon f2.8 and this is truly an impressive lens but the extra $750.00 was the big deciding factor. The Sigma is no slouch, very fast in focus, smooth and quiet and sharp as a tack. For those on a restricted budget who don't necessarily need to join the "L Club" you could do a lot worse than having a look at this lens.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3

UT Scott · December 13, 2006

Ohhh, that looks very nice! I've been thinking about that for my Nikon ($1800 for the nikon vr version is a little high). I was thinking about getting the 1.4 TC for it too. It looks like you have one on your lens (2x maybe?), does the focus stay just as fast with it on (if you even have one on)? Also, has the tripod foot gotten in the way while trying to zoom? It kind of looks like it would

Aussieroo · December 13, 2006

UT Scott wrote:

Ohhh, that looks very nice! I've been thinking about that for my Nikon ($1800 for the nikon vr version is a little high). I was thinking about getting the 1.4 TC for it too. It looks like you have one on your lens (2x maybe?), does the focus stay just as fast with it on (if you even have one on)? Also, has the tripod foot gotten in the way while trying to zoom? It kind of looks like it would

$1800?? what dollars? $1265 in Aust for both the Canon or Nikon mount. Look at
http://photobuff.com.au/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=8_12&products_id=80

that is who I bought mine from.

Good eyes! It is the 2x's telelconverter. At wide open f5.6 it is a little too soft. Need to use f8 or better which makes it slow in low light but acceptable for the budget bound. The 400mmIS USM is just a little out of my ball park. The focusing doesn't seem any different with the converter on. With or without it shooting air shows with planes at a bit of a distance it is easy to miss the focus and then the lens hunts but so do most lenses.
The tipod foot can be a pain but you get use to changing position and it works okay.

UT Scott · December 14, 2006

Aussieroo wrote:

$1800?? what dollars? $1265 in Aust for both the Canon or Nikon mount.

No, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 vr (not the sigma one) is about 1800 (you can get it for about 1500 with rebates and sales).

The sigma one here is only like $800

Aussieroo · December 14, 2006

UT Scott wrote:

The sigma one here is only like $800

Okay thats US Dollars. Would be about the same here.

Phyxius · December 14, 2006

So, you like the Sigma? Since there have been lots of posts on here about the Bigma (50-500mm) I've been leaning toward a Sigma for a super telephoto for the GNP Shootout. Obviously I have a while to decide, but it's still good to hear people saying nice things about them.

I did just buy the Nikon 70 - 200 f 2.8 VR (so the almost a Nikon version of your lens) It set me back about $1800, because I bought it a camera store as opposed to one of the online stores that sell them for a couple hundred less. I have until 10 days after Christmas to make sure I like it and I'll be going to a high school musical concert tonight to test it out in lowlight. I used it outside for sports once and for puppy portraits and so far so good. I guess we'll see after the REAL test tonight!

Do you have any other sigmas? Notice and IQ issues when using the TC?

Congrats on the new lens!

DYancy · December 18, 2006

Would you be so kind as to post some photos that you have taken with this lens? I'm on the fence about ordering one instead of a Canon 70-200 L for sheer cost savings alone.

Thanks.

Aussieroo · December 18, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Would you be so kind as to post some photos that you have taken with this lens? I'm on the fence about ordering one instead of a Canon 70-200 L for sheer cost savings alone.

Thanks.

I will post a couple for you shortly, just a tad busy right now. However my photos may not be the best to judge by. If you don't like the photo that shouldn't mean you don't like the lens. It is always best to try and get your hands on one and see for yourself. Although I have to say I bought it sight unseen as a result of researching reports on the net.

DoctorIt · December 18, 2006

I'm with you 'roo - I've always been nothing but super impressed with Sigma's EX lenses. I've owned the 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/4, and shot with the 120-300/2.8 - all of them were of excellent build quality, exceptional optics, and another thing I would add - work extremely well with the Sigma 1.4 and 2x TC's (as in your photo).

At half the price in some cases, or in the case of the 100-300, there is really no equal in Canon or Nikkor lineups.

Big

to Sigma from me.

Aussieroo · December 18, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Would you be so kind as to post some photos that you have taken with this lens? I'm on the fence about ordering one instead of a Canon 70-200 L for sheer cost savings alone.

Thanks.

I have posted a few photos that came straight off the camera to give you a chance to see them as they were taken rather than after I edited them. So don't be too harsh on my posts please

http://ozphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/2254234
you can also see the exif info there. So hope this helps. I will try to add a few more as time permits.

You can go to this link to view the full sized files to get a fairer idea raither than a cut down file like ths one:

DYancy · December 18, 2006

Ralph, thanks so much for posting those pictures. I'm a believer now! Will wait and make sure the wife didn't get me anything like this for Christmas (I've been dropping hints) and if not, order one for myself after the upcoming weekend.

Aussieroo · December 18, 2006

DYancy wrote:

Ralph, thanks so much for posting those pictures. I'm a believer now! Will wait and make sure the wife didn't get me anything like this for Christmas (I've been dropping hints) and if not, order one for myself after the upcoming weekend.

Great!! I seriously can't see you being disapointed with it. Also it doesn't stick out in a croud like the white ones do. I have always been one that likes to blend in rather than stand out. Good luck with it, will be interested to read your review after you have shot a few frames.

claudermilk · December 19, 2006

Thanks for posting the samples. Looks like the reputation is well-earned.

Now to debate with myself...Sigma...L...Sigma...L...

70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM AF Macro

Comments