j4nu wrote:
I wonder how much difference there is between 150/2 and 200/2? It's hard to argue the practicality of a zoom (let alone FPS and AF restrictions) but I guess the Sigma pops a lot more .
If the subject is the same size in the frame the DoF will be identical. However the angle of view will be different and you'll be closer to your subject, so the composition and perspective will be slightly different.
If the cameras to subject are the same distance then there's 1/3 more apparent DoF. If you crop DoF would appear to be the same (different magnification amount).
I suspect that although the zoom is spectacular the prime might have even more detail. But the 200mm is a real specially lens and I'll stick with my 50 to 150.
j4nu wrote:
I wonder how much difference there is between 150/2 and 200/2? It's hard to argue the practicality of a zoom (let alone FPS and AF restrictions) but I guess the Sigma pops a lot more .
The new Sigma 200F2 also has a minimum focus distance of 1.7 meters. It's a very different beast, that has very specific uses.
I do wonder what Sony has in store to counter this. I used a Canon 200/1.8 once and was blown away by that, so there's definitely a chance of a revival here.
I am waiting to see a comparison between this lens and the Sony 70-200/2.8GMii at 200mm wide open. The Sony 70-200gmii is so good that I feel I could come VERY close to the Sigma with a tiny bit of post processing blur. Plus the Sony is so flexible because it can use teleconverters. I'm interested in the Sigma but will wait to see some comparisons.
mudlake wrote:
I am waiting to see a comparison between this lens and the Sony 70-200/2.8GMii at 200mm wide open. The Sony 70-200gmii is so good that I feel I could come VERY close to the Sigma with a tiny bit of post processing blur. Plus the Sony is so flexible because it can use teleconverters. I'm interested in the Sigma but will wait to see some comparisons.
It definitely has a different feel compared to the 70‑200/2.8 GM II at 200mm. If you check the sample shots, you'll see it's not just about resolution or contrast...it's really about the overall look and the subject isolation, especially when the background is farther away from the focused subject. Sure, you can add some post-processing blur, but it's hard to fully replicate that natural separation and character straight from the lens.
Yeah, I played around with dofsimulator and 150/2 is actually pretty close to 135/1.8 I have some experience with . 200/2 definitely stands out of the bunch.
Seems like someone has to really value the 200-300mm range to want this lens over other options. But personally, I may be one of those people. The 300GM is also very appealing to me, but far over budget. The 50-150/2 is a bit short for my use. The 70-200/2.8 is the more practical option, especially being available used.
Seems like someone has to really value the 200-300mm range to want this lens over other options. But personally, I may be one of those people. The 300GM is also very appealing to me, but far over budget. The 50-150/2 is a bit short for my use. The 70-200/2.8 is the more practical option, especially being available used.
I think you really have to be into bokeh/separation to appreciate this lens. In my case, I'd prefer it over 300GM, because it's shorter and I'd mostly be using it for portraits / family shots where it would help.
Just went back through my daughters Lacrosse photos...amazing how many of them were taken at 200mm with my 70-200 2.8II & cropped. Not cropped enough to need 300mm (although now that she plays in high school we'll see what the sight lines are, might need 300mm), but a lens like this can begin to be justified if it's got more than a single use, which this would have between sports and portraits.
But- it's a lot of money when the 70-200II is as good as it is, and flexible enough that it would go nowhere in my kit regardless. Will have to give it some thought going forward.
arbitrage wrote:
I have one subject that this lens would be great for. I have many more subjects this lens would be great for if it could take TCs and shoot 30FPS.
Unfortunately it can't take TCs nor shoot more than 15FPS so once again a very cool Sigma lens I won't buy.
Dave Sanders wrote:
At least Sony users won't feel left out? Hah.
Still, I want that to change so I can use a 1.4 with my 70-200.
Overall, the samples look fantastic; Manny took some really beauties. His city portraits are perfect for a 200/2 though.
I do not think you're alone in that desire. Still, on this lens, I'm not sure Sony's cripple hammer is going to do much to stop sales. It's a unique lens, it's got some major appeal for event, sports, portraiture, and video (so long as you plan no long focus transitions), it's decently light (though not as light as the 300GM), and, performance to price, it's a bargain. I think Sigma's going to have a hard time fulfilling orders on it for a while.
One other odd little difference between Sony and third party lenses on E-mount is that stabilized third party lenses don't allow additional post processing (gyro based) stabilization of video. That is also reserved for Sony lenses (and even there not all Sony lenses with stabilization are supported).
This came as a surprise to me (I switched from the 200-600 to a Tamron 50-400mm for a boat trip and was wondering why I couldn't post process anything anymore : (
My only issue is Canadian pricing, for all Sigma lenses. Sigma recently bumped the prices in Canada as much as 20-30% when Sigma Canada is not even affected by US tariffs.
In US, Sony FE 70-200 GM II is 3000, Sigma 200 is 3300.
In Canada. GM II is 3500 and Sigma 200 is whopping 4500.
None of the other brands increased prices in Canada, only Sigma did.
I spent about 30 minutes shooting with this lens at a skate park and brought along my GM 135 for a direct comparison of AF speed and accuracy. I came away impressed with Sigma’s latest AF motors; the Sigma locked onto subjects faster than the GM and tracked them very well throughout. Here are a few shots taken with the lens.
Outstanding wrote:
My only issue is Canadian pricing, for all Sigma lenses. Sigma recently bumped the prices in Canada as much as 20-30% when Sigma Canada is not even affected by US tariffs.
In US, Sony FE 70-200 GM II is 3000, Sigma 200 is 3300.
In Canada. GM II is 3500 and Sigma 200 is whopping 4500.
None of the other brands increased prices in Canada, only Sigma did.
Yeah, this is going to be an issue here in Canada it seems. Sigma treats us separately for warranty, and service, but prices based on the US price + exchange. Works fine without the tariffs but it'll kill the legitimate Canadian market otherwise.
I like the lens, but I'm going to stick with my 200VR at that price.
I see a reviewer calling this his "all-time favorite portrait lens". Sure, it can be used for portraits, but it's a terrible focal length for most portraits. It creates such a flat view, and puts the photographer very far away from the subject.
.
. 200/2 definitely stands out of the bunch.
