 |
|
|
lanceboxd80
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 24, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
GREAT IMAGE QUALITY ABOVE 2.8,CHEAP,FAST FOCUSING,GREAT MACRO LENS,ONE OF THE BEST THIRD PARTY LENS EVER
|
|
Cons:
|
One of the most UNDERRATED LENS, Soft at 2.8, Feels cheap because of the lens rubber body, NO VR
|
|
|
One of the fastest 3rd party lens I've used.Very fast when finding subjects, it even hunts in the dark at fast speed(most of the time).Image quality is not that excellent until used with correct camera setting. If you feel that this lens does not give you a great buy or quality well my tip for you is I'd still edit my photos rather than buy a Nikon/Canon brand or just buy a 50mm.Because of the price.It is half the price in our country so it is a great buy for me.
|
|
 May 24, 2011
|
|
Martyn Frankli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, 2.8, sharp, price, build, operation
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing at all.
|
|
Here I am reviewing the original version. The 2.8 EX. Its not the DG version, its not the OS version and its not a macro lens.
1) The price of this lens is way too cheap!
2) It can produce extremely good images, as good as my Canon 70-200 f/4 non is. No, infact better because you have an extra stop.
3) Focus is spot on, no front or back focus issues on both a 5D mk1 and 1ds MK2
I bought this off ebay spur of the moment as it was way too cheap! and I could do with a cheap and disposable 2.8 that I didn't have to care about getting wet or damaging. It was bought as a throw away, non white (L) discreet lens. I had low expectations really as the lens was too cheap to be good right?
Wrong!
Since owning this and seeing how good it is, I started to read reviews of it and noticed a trend... many times I have read the old version (this version) is much better than the newer DG macro version and even the new OS version. Hard to believe but it does indeed seem to be spot on 100% true.
Enough rambling, here's the evidence, 95% of the images in this set are this Sigma lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/42000933@N02/sets/72157624956389241/
Summary, if you get the chance to grab this original version, get it. Stupid cheap and punching way, way above it price!
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2010
|
|
hatboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $485.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing, pretty sharp f/4 and beyond, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at f/2.8, manual focus ring locked up and is now useless
|
|
|
I bought this lens second hand and it started out pretty well. This is the Mk I version of the lens and doesn't have any focusing problems. It is a little soft at f/2.8, but not unusable. Great for sports photography. I had the manual focus ring lock up (can't get it to budge) and have heard a couple other people have this problem. Doesn't matter a huge deal as I use it for sports photography and the AF is snappy and spot on with it.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2010
|
|
Doug Weasner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 221
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Focus fast and accurate
Focus & zoom rings feel excellent
Tripod collar very clever & useful
Optically excellent from f4 and up
|
|
Cons:
|
Pictures, at least on my copy, are unusable soft mush, even in the center, at 2.8. Be prepared for sending to Sigma if your copy isn't in spec on your body. Recently announced stabilized version likely a better value.
|
|
|
I needed a 70-200 2.8 for an event. I tried the Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8 in the store. I took home the Sigma because of the faster focusing, better tripod collar, and higher build quality.
The pictures from the event were average at best.
After more time with the lens (about a year now), I have verified that the AF is fine. The lens just doesn't produce results that are printable at larger than 4x6 inch, at f2.8. At f4, it will print at 16x24 inch from my D90. I have never seen such a "Jekyll and Hyde" lens before. If this lens needed stopping down to f5.6, I would have rated it a 6 or lower - My 55-200VR can shoot at 5.6 for a quarter of the cost and weight of this Sigma. Usable f4 is a disappointing result, but a 2.8 telezoom of some sort is needed to achieve it in Nikon mount.
I have not yet sent it to Sigma. $800 investments shouldn't need customer quality control. If you are considering this lens, make sure you have the chance to thoroughly test either before buying or with a return period before investing.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2010
|
|
L_40
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice price for an f2.8.
Mechanical build quality seems good.
|
|
Cons:
|
Generally, I think it is (too) soft at 2.8. Much too soft at the long end.
Front focusing problems.
|
|
|
Weight/balance is good (for the type) on a D90.
Sharpness at f2.8 is not good. Quite a bit better at f4.
Have had front focusing problems. Still have, but to a lesser extent, even though my lens/body has been sent in for calibration.
I would have bought the Nikon lens, had I bought a new today.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2009
|
|
Shop Hopkins
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 58
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $800.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Great when it works!
|
|
Cons:
|
Returning for 2nd time - focusing, exposure problems.
|
|
|
Bought in 2006. Returned last May for focusing and exposure errors. Lens can be slightly rotated when attached to camera body. Now, in October, doing same thing! Lost bunch of soccers images this past weekend. Pissed, to say the least. May sell and finally get the Nikon version.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2009
|
|
gfressadi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 26, 2009
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
|
Can anyone clarify if this is the review page for sigma's APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM or just the APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM
The main difference being the II
thanks,
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2009
|
|
zergkind
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8, very fast autofocus, tank-like build quality with internal focusing and zooming, nice price tag and finally.. it is black!
|
|
Cons:
|
my copy gave me soft pictures with yellowish color cast, image quality non as good as 85L
|
|
|
It was my first telephoto lens. When I bought it, I had 30/1.4 and 10-20 on a crop sensor canon body, so I had a lack of longer FL. So I made a choice between sig 70-200/2.8, canon 70-300 IS and sig 100-300/4. I didn't want to be payed with attention so I desired not to look at any white canon 70-200. Sig 70-200 won the contest because of its better build quality and faster aperture.
After a year of use I found it as a good sports shooting lens with it's very fast and accurate autofocus: with iso 3200 you'll never see it's softness even at 100% 8] As a portrait shooting lens it disappointed me with it's softness even at f/5.6@70mm. Though it's got nice bokeh.
At last I bought 85LII and sold 70-200. Now feel good, stunned with IQ of 85 lens. Looking at 200/2L to get longer FL, though don't suffer much without it.
|
|
|
May 19, 2009
|
|
dieseldavey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 72
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Focus Price Sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
First was front focusing
|
|
|
just received my second copy and all ok now Happy chappy
|
|
|
May 8, 2009
|
|
dieseldavey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 72
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Front focus.Bokeh
|
|
|
Got mine a week ago and is on it,s way back to shop I did some research on the lens before buying and it ticked all the boxes just sad mine doesnt now i,m scratching my head to see what I will get to replace it!
|
|
|
May 4, 2009
|
|
nycandre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2009
|
|
AaronNegro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1288
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good with crop and much better with FF. Sharp. Macro mode with focus distance at 1 m is very handy. HSM is quick and accurate. Focus ring works nice while AF is on, very handy for correcting AF to mach the eye. Tripod ring well balanced. Good build and good hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at 2.8 with crop. it front focusses with my 40D. (but it nails with the 5D)
|
|
Bought it brand new for my 40D and found it was front focussing a bit.
I thought it was the lens fault but after trying with a 5D I say it was nailing the spot with it.
thanks to this lens I saw my 40D needed calibration 
On crop sensor, this lens is a bit soft at 2.8 and gets sharp at 4.0.
On FF it is sharp all the way. Sharp enough at 2.8 (perfect for portraits) and very sharp from 4.0 on.
Things I found good.
-HSM compared with USM is not far and it works very well and fast.
-The lens is very resistant to flare.
-I like warm colors so this lens is great for my taste. On the 5D the colors are just perfect but on the 40D are warmer than I would like.
-It balances very well mounted on a tripod.
-It is very well built.
-The price is far better than the canon.
-It focuses 1/2 meter closer than the canon equivalent. That makes this lens even more polyvalent.
-Macro mode is not a real macro but it does a good job.
-The hood works as advertised and comes with the lens. (not as an extra)
-It comes with its own soft bag.
-Sigma warranty is a good deal these days.
-On crop sensors works fine but it shines on FF.
Not as Good
-Yellow cast or color aberration at 2.8 when used on crop sensors.
-I would love having OS with this lens but that would have a price.
-Not weather sealed but again, this has a price tag.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2009
|
|
LUHAMER
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 2, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 40
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack Sharp, price is right.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I purchase it second hand without the tripod ring, after all, I think I got a good copy, I don't have the bad experience like other people, the focus is accurate. HSM is an advantage. Anyway, I'm pretty happy with that. I also have the Canon 70-300mm IS whch is very light weight. Compared to it, this is heavy but the image of Sigma is gorgeous.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2009
|
|
MTBtrials
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1372
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing (HSM), great build quality (solid feeling), comes with hood and tripod mount.
|
|
Cons:
|
Quality control- tested two before giving up and not buying one for myself.
|
|
|
I really wanted to be able to purchase this lens. Unfortunatley (for the canon mount) I didn't have much luck.
(I tested both lenses on my new Canon 40D)
The first lens I tested at one local shop front focused, perhaps my test wasn't too scientific, but I centered my focus mark on an open book page (with the book at an angle) and you could see that the main focal point was well in front of where I had focused. That and there was some pretty bad CA in the text. The only reason I mention this first test is that I had an opportunity to duplicate it with a canon L and you could see the focus spread both in front and behind my center point. The first lens was the better of the two.
The second one I was really rooting for, in fact I had looked at the Tamron (too plastic feeling, and the AF is too noisy) and the canon non IS (too expensive). When I went to duplicate the same test as I had with the first one the lens simply began focus hunting and would not lock focus. We tried to use the lens with a 50D and a xsi with the same results. At that point I decided that I had might as well bite the bullet and went with the canon 70-200 2.8L IS.
Perhaps the sigma could have been a great lens, but if you do decide to buy one I would either try and buy it locally where you can test it extensivly or order it well in advance to when you actually need it as I would have been furious if I had ordered this lens before a big event or trip only to find that it wouldn't lock focus at any focal length or apeture.
TRY BEFORE YOU BUY.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2009
|
|
eanderson123
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 186
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and Razor Sharp. Great color and contrast. Excellent build and feel
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit heavy but it is a 2.8 zoom.
|
|
|
I am using this lens on my Canon 50D and I swear it’s like they were made for each other. The focus is super fast and accurate. The images are crisp and clean. The lens balances very well with the 50D and grip attached. The lens collar is very nice. It’s an internal movement lens that is built very well. This is truly a professional piece of photo equipment.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2009
|
|
tommyleong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 145
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap price, black lens, qreat image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
AF not as fast, but seems to improve as you use it.
Accurate AF too, no front or back focus
|
|
Everything seems fine, comes with hood, tripod collar and lens case............but some time down the road, you get something you never really expect, BUBBLES in the lens coat.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2798146635_3bcd66d04b_o.jpg
then followed by peeling
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2798146931_d380e16054.jpg
so what started as a good value lens , turned out to be costlier than anticipated since you cant sell off the lens
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
40
|
87252
|
May 24, 2011
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
65% of reviewers
|
$790.48
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.24
|
8.81
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
