I just got mine 2nd hand for $535 shipped - the new APO DG Macro version only 5 months old
This thing is HUGE (both in size and improvement over my 70-300 4-5.6)
Sigma makes some nice lenses, the 70-200 seems to be one of them. I am not making these statements based on your beautiful pictures, all "macro" shots but on those photos I have seen before from this lens including portraits. I do not own the lens.
I do not know what gear you use. I use Nikon and for just slightly more than what you paid, I could get the superb 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor in the used market. Not only the lens is excellent but the resale value is excellent too.
Do not misunderstand me, you have a very good lens but I prefer original manufacturer lenses; one of the reasons I bought my Nikon body.
Congratulations on your new lens and good luck!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
camerapapi wrote:
Sigma makes some nice lenses, the 70-200 seems to be one of them. I am not making these statements based on your beautiful pictures, all "macro" shots but on those photos I have seen before from this lens including portraits. I do not own the lens.
I do not know what gear you use. I use Nikon and for just slightly more than what you paid, I could get the superb 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor in the used market. Not only the lens is excellent but the resale value is excellent too.
Do not misunderstand me, you have a very good lens but I prefer original manufacturer lenses; one of the reasons I bought my Nikon body.
Congratulations on your new lens and good luck!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida. ...Show more →
I was looking at the 80-200 2.8 nikon, but the only thing in my price range was the older "push pull" which I did not like. It was $100 more (I had an offer for $625+shipping) for the 2 ring version, and I loose the AF-S (or well HSM) which I will need for sports
I made the same switch a few months ago. I love this sigma lens. The Nikon AFS version is no longer available, the AFD one is more expensive than the Sigma and doesn't have "macro" ability. It was a no brainer for me. It's a very sharp lens and is very well built.
To add another perspective - and why I chose the non AF-s 80-200.
I love the sigma glass. At its best it is as good as the Nikon and Canon couterparts and for a more reasonable kick in the wallet. The 70-200 in all its versions is one of their gems.
That said, when I had to decide what to get on a budget when I switched from Canon to Nikon and needed to stretch my funds as best as I could I sprang just a bit more for the Nikon.
I had the Canon version of the 70-200 sigma and it was fabulous. I went to a store and compared the three copies of sigmas they had in stock to the only two of the Canon L 70-200. One was non-is, the other was IS.
Here is the odd part. All the Sigmas were nice and sharp. Not a stinker in the bunch, which is what I was worried about with what you hear about the brand. Funny thing was that the non-is version (the one I could afford) was so terrible that the store had to order another copy for me to look at. It was soft on one half the frame when really close and just soft generaly. The IS version was great - exactly the same as the Sigma!
When I got to compare the non-Is second copy I concluded that it was a hair better wide open if you pixel peep. Otherwise the same except the warmer tones.
So I was very pleased and eventually bought other sigma lenses. I think I went through five all together. That is when I noticed the other side of the coin. It seems that this variable aspect to sigma quality is all over the place with other than a few of their consistent lenses like the 70-200. In particular I noticed that on some bodies the lenses, while sharp would freak out in an occasional maner. They would work fine most of the time but then some would randomly lock up or start to jitter back and forth, never able to stop until the batteries were removed. Then my Sigma did the same thing one day. So I sent it off and they sent it back saying that there was no problem with it. It never happened again, but still I at this point lost a lot of confidence.
Rumor has it that sigma reverse engineers the specs. Tamron and such supposedly pay a licence fee (on canon anyway if this is true) so while I had great luck optically I has enough episodes of lost shots and frustration leading to a lack of complete trust in my gear that when I sold off all my Canon gear I vowed to stay with only Nikkor optics. It is a bit more expensive but the cost fades with the years. I plan to stick to my nikon stuff even if I buy Canon gear again - so a bit more right now for the peace of mind this gives me is well worth it.
One last thing. When a new body comes out it happens sometimes that a sigma lens needs to be sent away to get re-chipped by sigma. Sigma is great at this and charged nothing for my 105 macro. But ... and this is a BIG but on the expensive pieces of glass. Eventually Sigma tells you that "this lens is no longer supported" and then you are out of luck. To each their own ... but I'd rather not have any future headaches rather than save what amounts to lunch money after a few years.
It really is a great lens. I had one for awhile before I got my 70-200 VR, and it was a strong performer and did everything my old 80-200 2.8 could do, and then some.
)