I have this lens being delivered today. Conveniently, my son has a XC race later that I hope to test the lens out on.
BTW, has anyone replaced the lens foot? I think the Leofoto one that is for the Sigma 500 and 70-200 would work, but not sure. Even though it's an Arca foot, I need a QD socket for the camera strap that I use.
Well, I didn't get to go to the XC meet, but I did get to test the lens in pre-golden hour light with my youngest son. These are all unedited RAWs except for the last one.
Hodie wrote:
Well, I didn't get to go to the XC meet, but I did get to test the lens in pre-golden hour light with my youngest son. These are all unedited RAWs except for the last one.
EDIT: D'oh, I just realized I shot all these at f/4! . Oops! It looks pretty good nonetheless!
I was just actually reviewing pictures I took a few days ago in burst mode on the A7R5 with the model walking directly towards me, I only got about 60% in focus and her eyes were clearly visible the whole time, now I'm going to have to do some more testing
71sbeetle wrote:
I was just actually reviewing pictures I took a few days ago in burst mode on the A7R5 with the model walking directly towards me, I only got about 60% in focus and her eyes were clearly visible the whole time, now I'm going to have to do some more testing
I would just chalk it up to the A9iii being superior with AF (even over the A1/A1ii). I also have the A7R5 and wouldn't expect it to have the same hit rate. I'm paying for the A9iii to excel in a few key areas, AF tracking and accuracy being one of them, and giving up a few other key areas where the A7RV makes up for.
That said, I think getting 70-80% hit rate at 10fps isn't too much to ask for in good conditions.
Hodie wrote:
I would just chalk it up to the A9iii being superior with AF (even over the A1/A1ii). I also have the A7R5 and wouldn't expect it to have the same hit rate. I'm paying for the A9iii to excel in a few key areas, AF tracking and accuracy being one of them, and giving up a few other key areas where the A7RV makes up for.
That said, I think getting 70-80% hit rate at 10fps isn't too much to ask for in good conditions.
Any other lens I own could easily track that, I'm talking someone walking at normal/slow pace, so seeing so many out of focus was disappointing, I'm going to have to look into it more. I did another set with the same model in the same place with the 105 1.4 and 100% were in focus (and I've shot jet fighters at full speed with the 105 with near 100% perfect results too but that's side to side usually, not coming towards or away from the camera)
71sbeetle wrote:
Any other lens I own could easily track that, I'm talking someone walking at normal/slow pace, so seeing so many out of focus was disappointing, I'm going to have to look into it more. I did another set with the same model in the same place with the 105 1.4 and 100% were in focus (and I've shot jet fighters at full speed with the 105 with near 100% perfect results too but that's side to side usually, not coming towards or away from the camera)
Ah got it. Yeah that’s odd. Let me know what you find out. I’ll try the A7RV as well.
GOVA wrote:
As an ex owner of Canon 200mm f/1.8, I don't find this bokeh pleasant.
Also, shooting with this is hard which shows. 80% of images here are OOF.
Well the Bokeh on the 85 GM II is not as good as on ver I either. There are no free lunches, just trade-offs. And I don’t share your opinion, cause that’s all it is. Right now this Sigma is the best 200mm F2 lens for mirrorless.
Jazzgear296 wrote:
Well the Bokeh on the 85 GM II is not as good as on ver I either. There are no free lunches, just trade-offs. And I don’t share your opinion, cause that’s all it is. Right now this Sigma is the best 200mm F2 lens for mirrorless.
IMO, Nikon 200VR ii still the top choice. Sigma has that modern sharpness which I’m not a fan off. Laowa is also another alternative
Not sure I like the images coming out of this lens. Technically great I am sure. I prefer the look of the Canon/Nikon 200 f/2 anyday. Goes to show that newer is not necessarily better.
Picture This! wrote:
Not sure I like the images coming out of this lens. Technically great I am sure. I prefer the look of the Canon/Nikon 200 f/2 anyday. Goes to show that newer is not necessarily better.
I took some yesterday that I actually really liked! But I personally find it a little too sharp in some cases, I like the rendering of lenses like the Canon 85L II or 135L because they are dreamy, this Sigma 200 has a "sharper" more clinical rendering which shows in some shots. One thing I did notice is the lens has a strong yellow cast, more so than the usual Sigma yellow cast, I usually do custom white balance and the other day I did a custom WB with my 50 1.2 GM and then later switched to the 200 and forgot to change the WB and wow all the pics were yellow lol. Also still having the issue with tracking a person walking directly towards the camera, I'm actually going to reset my camera to factory settings and try again.
Picture This! wrote:
Not sure I like the images coming out of this lens. Technically great I am sure. I prefer the look of the Canon/Nikon 200 f/2 anyday. Goes to show that newer is not necessarily better.
Where can I buy a mirrorless version of those lenses? Eh? 🤨
You lose virtually nothing shooting them with the adapter. They are magical lenses. I’ll take those any day over the “mirrorless” version’s clinical look.
Picture This! wrote:
You lose virtually nothing shooting them with the adapter. They are magical lenses. I’ll take those any day over the “mirrorless” version’s clinical look.
Yeah but you gain an expensive paper weight (when they break) since some may not be serviceable or will soon be in that category.
Anyway, we’re getting off track. This is an image thread for the Sigma 200 F2; and as for what’s relevant — my clients will absolutely love the images I will produce for them from this lens. At the end of the day, that’s what matters.
Peire wrote:
My Sigma 200/2 FE arrives this thursday.
Congrats, and get your arms ready! She is heavy.
Between the 50-150 GM and 300 GM, this one is noticeably heavier. Not considerably heavier, but noticeably.
On my A9iii with an L-bracket, the weight shifts towards the camera (i.e., it doesn't sit on its foot without it tipping over on the camera side). That is better than being front heavy. My 50-150 and 300, both with aftermarket lens feet, sit flat. I'm waiting for an aftermarket lens foot that is compatible with this lens. Maybe the Leofoto one for the Sigma 500 is, but not confirmed.
In terms of handling, the 300 GM is best, followed by the 50-150, then the Sigma 200. All very manageable and handholdable, but I do notice the differences.
I just got mine today — took one quick shot of my dog, and it’s simply amazing, and no complaints with the quality of the bokeh; nice and smooth. As for the weight, I don’t find it heavy at all, at least no more than a typical 70-200 F/2.8 lens.
. Oops! It looks pretty good nonetheless!
