I was just wondering if anyone has any experience with this lens for use at weddings. I am giving it some serious consideration over the Nikon 70-200 simply due to the fact that it is almost 1/3 the cost (at least of the new Nikon 70-200). Just looking for feedback in terms of low light abilities, sharpness etc. (I will be using it on a Nikon D700 by the way...)

Thanks!

If you get a sharp copy it will be perfectly fine...

After buying top notch lenses and selling them for the exact price I bought them, I've learned to buy the best. That said, Nikon 70-200 is a fantastic performer due to the fact that it has VR and the Sigma doesn't. With the release of the new Nikon, there will be tons of 70-200's on sale. Just my 2 cents.

We have 2 of them for Canon and rely heavily on them. If you get one and it doesn't seem sharp (test it fairly scientifically right out of the box), send it on in for calibration.

Like DragonflyDM said, when they're good, they're good. I'll add that when they're so-so, they're meh. When they're meh and you send it in for calibration and they misplace it somewhere in their facility and, after a couple of days of calling them about it, say that the tech that worked on it will be back next wednesday and he'll probably know where it is and you have to go postal on them saying that you shouldn't have to wait and that they need to send you a new one (because yours was new) to which they say they are just a repair facility and don't keep new ones in stock and you have to lay it on the line for them and tell them you don't give a crap if they have to go to a local camera store and pay full price for one as long as they get a brand new calibrated lens in your hands by tomorrow... they suck eggs.

Seriously, since then no major trouble. I do need to send our oldest one in because it only works in AF, but it's 3 or 4 years old and is not babied by any means. It's actually the version 1 of the lens (non-macro).

If you get one and it doesn't seem sharp (test it fairly scientifically right out of the box), send it on in for calibration. Don't let my horrible experience scare you away.

- Jeff

One of the many lessons I have learned in this photography business is go ahead and buy the best equipment. You will eventually get it anyway. When I first started I went the Tamron/Sigma route. Now I have sold those off for a whopping loss mind you to buy Nikon.

I had one for Canon and it was soft till f5.6. Sent for calibration, but they didn't manage to fix it.

Solid build quality, smooth operation and fast focusing. Heavy.

If you are looking for a new one then keep in mind that sigma's loose a lot of value quickly, compared to canon or nikon lenses.

Steve, everyone has different experience with OEM and non-OEM. You and everyone else knows this obvious fact of life. I had the Sigma (vers I) and loved it. Sold it because I needed the money at the time.

Anyway, I know there are those who claim the best (being Canon/Nikon "pro" gear) is the only way to go. Well, OEM gear is not always the best. Look at the Sigma 50 1.4 that many see as being better than Canon's offering. There are also several people complaining about Canon/Nikon pro gear failing them and never trusting it. I was very surprised of this very thing when I was selling my 35L a few months ago; I'd never heard anyone talk down the 35L (though he could have been trying to talk down the price I did not feel he was).

Then you will have those like Victor S comparing a lens with image stabilization with one that doesn't. Personally, I think that comparison is ridiculous at best. That's like complaining that a low cost two seater vehicle can't seat eight people where as a mini van can.....if you feel image stabilization is useful and you can afford it go for it.

I loved the Sigma and found it VERY useful. Though I have the Canon 135L on the long end I still feel a need for a somewhat longer lens and just might pickup another Sigma 70-200 to help.

Peace,
Cordell

If you want to save money, check out the older Nikon 80-200/2.8. I liked it better than the 70-200/2.8VR and the 70-200/2.8IS. It goes for ~$1,000 usually.

Saad Syed wrote:
If you want to save money, check out the older Nikon 80-200/2.8. I liked it better than the 70-200/2.8VR and the 70-200/2.8IS. It goes for ~$1,000 usually.

Right, I have an 80 - 200 f2.8 nikkor, a friend shoots with a sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 HSM , Both about the same price. I can't see any difference in results. The 70 - 200 nikkor has VR , but it's twice the price...

I just got mine back from Sigma, had to send in, because the focus motor took a dive. It was fixed at no charge (I love five year warranties). My only complaint was the complete lack of communication - I had to reach out to them, just to confirm the actually received the initial shipment.

Anyway, not a bad compromise when you consider the cost/performance. Would I rather have a Canon 2.8 IS? You bet I would, but I can live with the Sigma until that is more practical to upgrade.

This lens comes with all If's, (had two) save yourself and try the 180 2.8 afd or save for the latest nikkor

p150 wrote:

Like DragonflyDM said, when they're good, they're good. I'll add that when they're so-so, they're meh. When they're meh and you send it in for calibration and they misplace it somewhere in their facility and, after a couple of days of calling them about it, say that the tech that worked on it will be back next wednesday and he'll probably know where it is and you have to go postal on them saying that you shouldn't have to wait and that they need to send you a new one (because yours was new) to which they say they are just a repair facility and don't keep new ones in stock and you have to lay it on the line for them and tell them you don't give a crap if they have to go to a local camera store and pay full price for one as long as they get a brand new calibrated lens in your hands by tomorrow... they suck eggs.



holy run on sentence batman!!