|
|
sparadise
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 261
|
|
Review Date: Feb 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $763.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open
Fast silent AF
Handles nicely with a 7D
Solid build quality
Close focusing 3.3ft
|
|
Cons:
|
Tripod foot can get in the way of the zoom ring
|
|
I purchased the latest version of the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and am extremely happy with it. The reason I chose the Sigma over the Canon non IS was for the closer minimum focusing distance and price. The Canon is 4.9 ft while the Sigma is 3.3 ft. That was important to me. The Canon IS is at 4.3 ft and the new IS II will be 3.9 ft . The Sigma is slightly lighter than any of the Canon's and the build quality is more than adequate for amateur use. I have yet to wear out any lens I have ever owned. The tripod foot is not an issue because I will use this lens hand held with the tripod collar off 90% of the time anyway. To zoom from 70 to 200 is a very short distance which is nice also. I have never owned any of the Canon 70-200's but did own a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR I and I prefer this lens to the Nikon I owned. Focus is spot on.
|
|
 Feb 5, 2010
|
|
cjwhitsett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 224
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $580.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, sharp, fast, quiet, well built without being too heavy, did I mention price
|
|
Cons:
|
Long minimum focus distance, though the 1.4x TC helps
|
|
I have the non-DG version of this lens.
Okay, I haven't had this lens but for a couple days of messing around, but I think it's great. Focus is fast, silent, and spot on; IQ is a new kind of awesome for a zoom.
Keep in mind that this is my first "really good glass," so I'm probably prone to be a bit more enamored than a more seasoned photographer.
Throw on the Sigma 1.4x (also non-DG) TC and this lens hardly misses a beat. The two make an excellent couple. Sharpness and focusing are still awesome.
My only nit--and it's a small one-- is that the minimum focus distance is six feet. It just takes a little getting used to. With the TC however, semi-close shots are still very possible.
I did notice a little bit of CA on this lens shooting a contrasty scene, but, really, it just wasn't much at all, but that's just me.
Given how much the Canon and Nikon alternatives cost, I have to believe this lens is quite possibly one of the best values around. This lens is made to perform without slaughtering your wallet.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2009
|
|
nick53097
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 19, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 237
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, sharp, excellent colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Did not found yet
|
|
I have HSM II version of this lens and compare to my friends Nikon 70-200 I did not found any difference in sharpness or color reproduction (I think I like Sigma more for better colors)
Very well build, fast and quit
Highly recommened.
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2009
|
|
LotsToLearn
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 426
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Internal zoom, internal focus, large constant maximum aperture
|
|
Cons:
|
Seemingly very subject to flare, black finishing easily peels
|
|
I have a Nikon mount non DG version of the lens.
I have to give the lens a very low rating because of what seems to be very poor performance under any sort of potential flare conditions. I find the lens produces very soft images, either having a tremendous haze effect or with alot of aberrations, whenever there is any subject in bright light. I get some pretty good results under subdued and flash lighting though, so it's not an overall lens issue.
I have other Sigma non DG variations of lenses and have not encountered this problem so I don't know whether to chalk it up to better reflective coatings on DG lenses or just a really poor copy of a lens.
Regardless, I have to review on my experiences and unfortunately those experiences are not good with the Sigma 70-200 non-DG lens. When I have the funds I will look into upgrading to one of the newer versions of the lens.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2009
|
|
CSBAlexPowers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, inexpensive.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap build.
|
|
I purchased this lens as an inexpensive alternative to the Canon "L" variants. My copy was used on a Rebel XT and 30D.
Image quality is great for the price — photos are as sharp as the Nikkor 70-200 VR and Canon 70-200/2.8 IS. I've used all three.
Color could be better, but casts and murkiness easily can be handled in post-processing.
HSM works great — the autofocus motor outlasted the manual focus functionality on my copy. It's not quite as fast as Canon USM or Nikon SWM, but focus is notably faster and quieter than non-USM lenses.
While I've heard that front- or back-focusing is an issue on Sigma lenses, I never had a focus issue with the 70-200.
Build quality is iffy, but consumers won't complain at savings of $200-$400 over similar Canon or Nikon lenses. You get what you pay for.
My copy literally fell apart after three years of professional use, but I have nothing bad to say. This lens is perfect for consumers who want a fast, medium-length lens sans the weatherproofing or robust build quality of a top-end Canon/Nikon.
|
|
|
May 5, 2009
|
|
Dirk Hiemstra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp from the beginning at 2.8, even better at 4.0, nice colouring, fast HSM. Accepts Sigma TC 1.4.
|
|
Cons:
|
Closest focussing at appr 1.5 mtr
|
|
Quite a surprice for the price. No complaints apart from the weight.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2008
|
|
msdawe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Speed, Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of OS (Sigma's VR), Zoom Ring and Focus Ring are backwards (picky, I know)
|
|
I'm really impressed with this lens. I was comparing it with the Tamron and the build quality and size were the determining factors. It works very well with Sigma's 2x TC.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2008
|
|
graemeak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 305
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and accurate focussing, well damped/smooth focussing ring, free lens hood, free case, free tripod collar - good old Sigma! Black - it stands out less than a white lens. Price, very versatile lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Only one negative aspect... the zoom ring isn't as smooth as the focussing ring, and I feel the lens hood could be made better (stronger material) but it was free so who cares?
|
|
I paid £320, not $320.
Before buying this older version of the lens I tried out the newer macro version and I just didn't like it... I found it to have inaccurate focussing and I didn't care much for the design/build.
So I tried this one out and I'm glad I did =) definately worth what I paid!
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2008
|
|
warne
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality sharp @ F2.8 on this copy
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far
|
|
Purchased used on E bay uk lens was in good condition with minor marks to finish. Moved from a Canon 70-200 F4L wanted the extra stop but could not afford a new Sigma or Canon. This is a non DG version but not had any reported flare issues If you cant afford the Canon F2.8 this for me is the way to go but check your copy when you buy
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2008
|
|
Shop Hopkins
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 22, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 58
|
|
Review Date: Mar 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great, all around.
|
|
Cons:
|
Electronic connection (body-lens) problem.
|
|
I have the first HSM version, about 2yrs old. Been having trouble with slightly loose connection between body and lens. Results in black frmaes when lens roatates - maybe 1/16 of an inch - and electronic connection is 'lost'! Started with my D70S and now on my D300. Thought it may have been my CF cards, but it is not. Contacting Sigma today.
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2008
|
|
esti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, vibrant colours and built like a tank!
|
|
Cons:
|
None - this is fantastic lens
|
|
Without doubt my favourite lens: it delivers consistent, top-quality results every time.
I do quite a lot of concert photography, and found that I need a long 2.8f zoom lens. I looked at the Canon L-series 70-200/2.8 but couldn't really justify the price. Then I tried this gorgeous Sigma lens and I was immediately sold!
It's fast, produces beautifully sharp images even at it's widest, and is built like a tank. The equal of the finest Canon glass, and a fraction of the price.
I highly recommend this lens.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2008
|
|
InMotion
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
What is the difference between the DG, the non DG, and the macro version of this lens? I keep seeing all three for sale (used) and I just don't know which is better. I shoot mostly sporting type events (low light, fast movement) and nature.
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2007
|
|
|
