 |
|
|
PJ Fish
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 24, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Dec 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Razor sharp lens exactly on par with the big brands. Its good designed and very sharp on 200mm and feels good in your hand,i like the short FAT design and the lens hood as well.
|
|
Cons:
|
The finish is not so good and it lacks OS(VR=nikon and IS=canon stabilzing system resp. )nowadays its common on the high end lenses and this Sigma i furthermore lacks weather sealing as well!!
|
|
|
This is a best buy if you can find it used i had it in Canon mount and i find it as sharp yes even better than its big brother from canon .
This Sigma 70-200 is a jewel and i think its a marvellous piece of equipment even if it is the Old model without the DG (digital coating).
I think its very close to Nikon and Canons version in performance.
My sample was sharp from corner to corner but i dont no about the new version :DG (i have not tried this yet).
It is for certain that its quality all over.
|
|
 Dec 1, 2007
|
|
kool100vr4
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $406.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A great tele lens, extremely sharp.very quiet.good strong contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
none found..
|
|
|
I have great experience with many Sigma EX lenses, so to get this Sigma 70-200mm EX HSM F2.8, i have no doubt that it will produces great image quality, indeed its razor sharp lens. Its not to my surprise that it will, it has a beautiful petal hood, good size but not too heavy, HSM is very quiet, most of the time i dont even hear AF, it produces very contrasty, strong colors and razor cutting edge sharp. I use it with my 2 Fuji S2 & S3 pros and Nikon d50, with Sigma EX lenses and Fujis super CCD i get best pictures quality, today i dont think any DSLR can out do this combinations.
Im very happy with all Sigma EX lenses i got. with this said, ive sold all my Canon and Nikon gears to keep FUJI and Sigmas.
Sigma is the biggest lens company maker in this world..the name to trust.
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2007
|
|
BenoitLAFAURIE
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2006
Location: France
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Glass quality, , sharpness, natural colours, general handling, good build quality, good tripod mount, short minimum focusing distance, price, Sigma's good after sales customer service
|
|
Cons:
|
Front focusing never solved, no image stabilizer
|
|
|
I had two very good preious experiences with Sigma lenses fitting my Canon 20D.
The 10-20mm f/4.O-5.6mm EX DC HSM was perfect straight out of the box whereas the 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG needed some recalibrating in the Sigma's factory owing to a front focusing issue with the Canon 20D (since then, I have been very happy with that lens)
Therefore, it was obvious I would buy another Sigma lens to complete my kit.
I waited for the new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro to come out and have some good reviews to buy it.
Straight out of the box, it had a front focusing issue (otherwise, focusing manually, the picture quality was very good). I brought it back to the shop. Sigma replaced it with a new copy... same front focusing issue (same excellent picture quality when focusing manually). According to Sigma, these lenses didn't have any fault, and they suggested me to ask Canon to check my camera body, which Canon did: no issue with the body.
A bit fed up with the issue which seemed not to be solvable, I brought the lens back and bought a much more pricy Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM IS with which I haven't had any focusing issue.
If the Sigma lens didn't have any front focusing issue, I would recommand it highly, but with this problem, I would advise Canon users to stick with Canon lenses if they don't want to waste their time and energy in vain like I did to try to sourt out incompatibility problems between the two Sigma lenses and the Canon 20D body.
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2007
|
|
Aaron Hogsed
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Great value, nice handling, decent AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Not "L" quality, frequent trips to repair dept
|
|
|
Good lens for the money. Very nice color and contrast, sharpness is not "L" quality but is very good.
I think the color was actually better than my 70-200 2.8L IS but the canon is sharper and has IS.
You can get some great deals on this lens used and even new it is a great value.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2007
|
|
Comanche6
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $899.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quick focus, and less expensive than Canon's excellent L glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
Finish has some minor dings in it.
|
|
|
The model I am reviewing has since been discontinued for the newer macro version. Mine is the EX DG version produced just about the time the macro came out. I have been using mine on a Canon 30D since August, 2006, primarily to shoot night high school sports.
I am quite happy with the lens. I have not had the focus problems other users have reported. Most focus problems result from my error. I generally shoot using the center focus point only and I usually know when I miss the shot. Focus is quite fast even when using AI servo. Yes, I have had a few times when the lens failed to focus, but frankly, I've had that happen on rare occasion with all my lenses.
I do not find it a particularly heavy lens - at least not when considering it is an f 2.8 long zoom. I usually shoot it with a monopod for sports, and sometimes (day time only) use a 1.4 X teleconverter.
In my opinion, the lens is quite sharp. Looking at daytime sports shots, the image is crisp with a nice background blur. The quality deteriorates at night, but that is a function of the sensor, not the lens. Both color and contrast are quite good.
Its not quite fair of me to complain about the finish. My lens gets banged around quite a bit, so I won't complain about the one small place where the black finish has worn off.
If the newer macro version is as good as mine, you will probably be quite happy with this lens.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2007
|
|
modman.abd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2007
Location: Angola
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Clear and Fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Not so tuff body coating.
|
|
|
Ive been using this lens for 3 years, what I can say is this lens is excellent. Alternative to others lens that range between 70-200 f2.8 in the market.
Get this one!
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2007
|
|
Mono
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Produces very sharp images. Fast focus & good price
|
|
Cons:
|
Relatively heavily, but what do you expect from f/2.8 glass
|
|
Had this lens for about a year & always pleased with the results from any shoots. I know quite a few people who shoot sport, who have adopted this lens over the canon equivalent.
Example shot taken from RIAT Air show :- http://www.simplymono.com/gallery/index.php?id=4
The f/2.8 is great for isolating a subject by throwing the background out of focus.
|
|
|
May 12, 2007
|
|
richard samfor
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build, feel, finish, glass, lense cap does not rotate when you zoom,
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe weight but expected from good glass. Not super good at Autofocus in low light.
|
|
|
Mine is the newer macro version of the lense.
This thing is built like a tank!! The feel of the zoom and the focus grip is smooth and polished. This lense does not feel cheap in ANY way. Took several test shots and found that at F2.8 the focus is REALLY sensitive as the plane of focus is very narrow. The slightest out of focus and you subject may appear to be soft. But this is not all bad when you do get your subject in the plane of focus the bokeh is sublime.
I read that several people felt the lense hood did not attach well... Mine is very solid in the new MACRO version. Perhaps they headed the words of the comsumer on that one.
Autofocus in dim light seemed hit and miss. Found that flash assisted AF remedies that in an instant. Of course flash is not always desired... AF is fast... Quiet... and accurate given lots of light.
This is my first lense that is not IS and I find it very difficult to take a keeper without a tripod unless light is very abundant.
For a macro lense... The minimum focus distance is not that hot. But zoomed in makes up for that somewhat.
|
|
|
May 1, 2007
|
|
Marc_h
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 153
|
|
Review Date: Mar 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome price-quality ration. Fast AF, great build... And yeah, I might be a rare photographer saying that the weight is a con!
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing really! Maybe the fact that the IF versions are quite rare down here in the Netherlands!
|
|
|
I speak of the IF version ( older ).
Wow! Just wow! Just got this baby in a few days ago but my first experience with it is amazing. Photos are sharp all the way through, from F/2.8 to F/16 with minimal differences!
Before getting this lens I was kinda itchy about getting the F/4.0 from canon or this one. So I put my faith ( once again ) into Sigma and really made a good decision.
Main complaints I have read about the lens is that it's so heavy and it might get tiring after a day.
...I have it mounted to a 400D without GRIP! And I find it quite light, maybe near 2KG in total. But totally nothing bothering for me! I really love the weight actually, gives me a sturdy good tough feeling and makes me hold it much steadier, and I don't mind holding it up for ten minutes or so!
The black finish is of course amazing and the focus hasn't hunted yet! Unless I focus on a subject at less then 1.8m, that's logical.
I am one happy camper with this lens, and with my newly aquired backpack it couldn't fit any better (with lens hood on).. No fussing when I take it out!
If you want to choose between the F/4.0 and this lens, take THIS! Even now I have been saved with the F/2.8!
Marc
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2007
|
|
tell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1409
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great price, fast focus, bokeh...
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Up until 2 months ago, I owned this lens. Like an idiot, I packed it in my suitcase rather than carrying it on the plane and it went bye bye. I debated with myself whether to replace it with the same, or go with the king kong of 70-200s, the Canon 70-200 2.8is. I spent the extra $1k and guess what? I think in some respects, I liked the Sigma better. Yeah, the Canon lets me shoot at lower shutter speeds, but unless your subject is relatively still, it does you no good. If you're going to use this lens for sports where you need to get your shutter speed up, save yourself some dough and get the Sigma. You won't be sorry.
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2007
|
|
Beau Arnold
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 845
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $625.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 is very usable
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far
|
|
|
If the white body lenses are any better than my used 03 non dg then I could charge even more for 8 x 10's. This lens is sharp and fast. I have not tried the canon 2.8 but this sig is just as sharp as my L4 same focal length. I do not mind paying more for a 2.8L but somebody is going to have a hard time getting this sig first.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2007
|
|
jamiro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 7, 2006
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, good color, price
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
i bought it used.. its a fantastic lens for a low budget!
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2007
|
|
KMCC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $890.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, quick and silent AF, very smooth focus and zoom rings, sharp images across all apertures, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Besides the lens' weight, which really is to be expected, none come to mind.
|
|
|
I've been very favorably impressed with this lens. I shoot a lot of sports and have had very good success shooting hand-held indoors; as well as out. I've captured very sharp images from f/2.8 and smaller at all focal lengths.
I considered the Sigma 50-500mm, but decided to purchase the 70-200mm and a Sigma APO 2X teleconverter. I've been very happy with that combination. The 70-200 is perfect for most of my shooting, but the teleconverter provides the extra reach I want when shooting nature in the field. I've experienced only minimal drop-off in image sharpness when using the teleconverter.
The lens is very well built, with very smooth AF and zooming. It's built like a tank.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2007
|
|
roberto1979
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1334
|
|
Review Date: Dec 31, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $789.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
wow!
|
|
Cons:
|
now that i have a constant 2.8 lens, i want a longer one. it's addicting.
|
|
|
i've been into photography for about 18 months, and while i like all my current lenses, i have no "fast glass". the constant 2.8 is great to have. everyone wants to compare this lens to canons, but that's impossible in my opinion. canon can't seem to make a lens this nice for a resonable price like the sigma, so why compare? this lens works awesome with a teleconvertor. i've read where people talk about the weight, but i don't find it any issue at all. i have the Bigma, so that's what i consider to be heavy. the 70-200 just seems solid in my hands. the only real negative i've seen come from this lens is that now i understand why people love "bokeh" so now i want the sigma 120-300 for some extra reach to go with all that speed. anyone have 1900 bucks they can give me?????
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2006
|
|
rfernatt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
This is the newer Macro model. Great value for the money (included lens hood, carry case, and tripod collar), fast and silent AF, sharp images, good performance at F2.8, quality feel of lens and super smooth zoom/focus rings.
|
|
Cons:
|
On the heavy side, but to be expected in this class of lens.
|
|
|
I've only used this lens for about three weeks, but it has been great out of the box. It has been used primarily for indoor basketball photos and some other indoor photography. The F2.8 is great and the images are very clean and sharp even at 200mm on my copy.
The heft of the lens makes it a bit heavy, but adds to the quality feel. Unlike other zooms I've used, the focus and zoom rings are silky smooth and very wide/easy to operate.
I can't compare it to Canon 'L' glass, but with the performance of this Sigma thus far, I can't see paying much more for the Canon unless you really need the weather sealing.
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2006
|
|
Matt Clarke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Less expensive than Canon L glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
More chromatic aberration than my Canon 90-300 USM.
Soft focussing even at f8 and mounted on a tripod.
|
|
|
I used this lens for two weeks, once at a rugby match, and then again in the studio.
The chromatic aberration was much worse than my "plastic piston", Canon 90-300 USM.
The soft focussing occured across the entire focal and aperture range.
I took it back on Sunday and exchanged it for a Canon 70-200 F4L.
Sorry Sigma, but this piece of glass just couldn't do the job expected of it, and I wasn't prepared to go through the hassle of having it put right. At this price it should've worked perfectly right out of the box.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
153
|
533707
|
Jan 21, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$709.02
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.05
|
9.36
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
