pasblues wrote:
The Sigma has IS - the Laowa relies on the camera image stabilization. The Sigma is completely weather sealed, while the Laowa has a seal only at the mount. Great price point on the Laowa and the lens foot release is a great feature. Love the colors.
Don't forget about the rear filter as well. I spent over a month using both lenses, and for me, the extra cost of the Sigma isn't worth it. Don't get me wrong; Sigma makes great lenses, but I can put that extra $1,300 toward something else. At the end of the day, they're all just tools, and we should use the one that fits our needs best.
Yes, there’s just a matter of deciding if IS, build quality and extra weather sealing are deciding factors.
As I assesed my usage if this lens, I was coming from a Nikkor 200mm f2 VR II I use with my D850. That combination gives me an ability to crop in so deep, I don’t have to use a 300mm f2.8 and I get a critical extra f-stop for the low light sports I shoot.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
So, for me, the Siggy gives me a solid quality but a lens I can carry and handhold. It also makes my footprint smaller for indoor arenas. This affects my work life quality as I shoot sports several times a week for publication.
It’s really hard to beat the quality of that Nikkor 200mm f2 especially when paired with the D850.
The weight factor and affordability of the Siggy was my tipping point. In test shots with a non moving subject, I could get my SS down to 1/60 with no camera shake combined with the A1. I don’t know when I would use that low of a SS, but the lens IS is nice to have. It’s also nice to know that I wouldn’t have to panic if I got caught in some light sprinkles or faced some humid conditions like indoor swimming. Rain jackets can close that gap, though, so that may not be a dealbreaker if that option is used with the Laowa.
White lenses, much as I agree with others who simply don’t like them, do tend to reflect off heat, keeping them cooler longer. How much this matters depends on shooting conditions. Even a black camera body absorbs heat out in the field in hot conditions so it’s a consideration.
I think when we consider cost, it does depend on hobby vs pro-heavy usage. If I was a hobbyist with plenty of money, it’s a great era of photography for choices. The Laowa would scratch the itch of owning and using this 200mm f2. It’s long enough to capture more non camera aware moments and subject isolation as long as one has the discipline to not have zoom capability like with a 70-200 f2.8, which a lot of folks already own.
In my decision, a rear filter is never something I would use but that might matter to some so good point.
Alex Phan wrote:
Don't forget about the rear filter as well. I spent over a month using both lenses, and for me, the extra cost of the Sigma isn't worth it. Don't get me wrong; Sigma makes great lenses, but I can put that extra $1,300 toward something else. At the end of the day, they're all just tools, and we should use the one that fits our needs best.
pasblues wrote:
Yes, there’s just a matter of deciding if IS, build quality and extra weather sealing are deciding factors.
As I assesed my usage if this lens, I was coming from a Nikkor 200mm f2 VR II I use with my D850. That combination gives me an ability to crop in so deep, I don’t have to use a 300mm f2.8 and I get a critical extra f-stop for the low light sports I shoot.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
So, for me, the Siggy gives me a solid quality but a lens I can carry and handhold. It also makes my footprint smaller for indoor arenas. This affects my work life quality as I shoot sports several times a week for publication.
It’s really hard to beat the quality of that Nikkor 200mm f2 especially when paired with the D850.
The weight factor and affordability of the Siggy was my tipping point. In test shots with a non moving subject, I could get my SS down to 1/60 with no camera shake combined with the A1. I don’t know when I would use that low of a SS, but the lens IS is nice to have. It’s also nice to know that I wouldn’t have to panic if I got caught in some light sprinkles or faced some humid conditions like indoor swimming. Rain jackets can close that gap, though, so that may not be a dealbreaker if that option is used with the Laowa.
White lenses, much as I agree with others who simply don’t like them, do tend to reflect off heat, keeping them cooler longer. How much this matters depends on shooting conditions. Even a black camera body absorbs heat out in the field in hot conditions so it’s a consideration.
I think when we consider cost, it does depend on hobby vs pro-heavy usage. If I was a hobbyist with plenty of money, it’s a great era of photography for choices. The Laowa would scratch the itch of owning and using this 200mm f2. It’s long enough to capture more non camera aware moments and subject isolation as long as one has the discipline to not have zoom capability like with a 70-200 f2.8, which a lot of folks already own.
In my decision, a rear filter is never something I would use but that might matter to some so good point.
...Show more →
Ok but you CANNOT get the same look with a 135mm 1.8, so this is the problem I have when people try to dismiss this lens.
Sure is not for everyone but 200mm F2.0 gives a unique look that no other lens can match.
It doesn't mean is better or worse, its a matter of styles and preferences.
But no a 135mm or other is NOT the same.
For my shooting style my perfect combo is my 85mm 1.2 and a 200mm F2 or 1.8. Others will have difference preferences and that is perfectly fine, I am not going to dismiss their choices based on what I prefer or claim that mine can do the same as theirs.
Regards
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Ok but you CANNOT get the same look with a 135mm 1.8, so this is the problem I have when people try to dismiss this lens.
Sure is not for everyone but 200mm F2.0 gives a unique look that no other lens can match.
It doesn't mean is better or worse, its a matter of styles and preferences.
But no a 135mm or other is NOT the same.
For my shooting style my perfect combo is my 85mm 1.2 and a 200mm F2 or 1.8. Others will have difference preferences and that is perfectly fine, I am not going to dismiss their choices based on what I prefer or claim that mine can do the same as theirs.
Regards
And if you read what I stated - neither did I dismiss someone else's choices. For me, the difference is in reach, weight and handling. To be clear - for me - plus the fact that I already own the 135GM - if I didn't have a sports usage for the 200mm f2, I wouldn't have purchased it. The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh - in addition to the fact that I'm closer to my subject and can communicate more easily with the subject. This can be a factor for portrait shooters - and possibly why many prefer the 85mm focal length.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
There's a number of things that play into bokeh besides aperture that can be closely achieved with shorter focal length lenses to a certain point. I think the 135GM produces bokeh just fine without lugging a 6.5lb lens or even a 4lb lens. YMMV. Here's some compares I just did:
ILCE-1FE 135mm F1.8 GM lens135mmf/1.81/640s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/640s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/640s400 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-1FE 135mm F1.8 GM lens135mmf/1.81/640s400 ISO0.0 EV
Sure but saying "The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh " is very different from your first statement "just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM" that was my point. First statement made it sound like you could get the same with one or the other.
Plus is not just bokeh..depending on distance to subject etc, the 85mm 1.2 destroys backgrounds but is also the "compression", when its all combined, the 200mm will have a very unique look when used properly.
Different tools, different results
We all choose the tools that fit our needs, not much else to it.
Regards
pasblues wrote:
And if you read what I stated - neither did I dismiss someone else's choices. For me, the difference is in reach, weight and handling. To be clear - for me - plus the fact that I already own the 135GM - if I didn't have a sports usage for the 200mm f2, I wouldn't have purchased it. The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh - in addition to the fact that I'm closer to my subject and can communicate more easily with the subject. This can be a factor for portrait shooters - and possibly why many prefer the 85mm focal length.
There's a number of things that play into bokeh besides aperture that can be closely achieved with shorter focal length lenses to a certain point. I think the 135GM produces bokeh just fine without lugging a 6.5lb lens or even a 4lb lens. YMMV. Here's some compares I just did:
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Sure but saying "The 135GM gets me plenty of bokeh " is very different from your first statement "just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM" that was my point. First statement made it sound like you could get the same with one or the other.
Plus is not just bokeh..depending on distance to subject etc, the 85mm 1.2 destroys backgrounds but is also the "compression", when its all combined, nothing the 200mm will have a very unique look when used properly.
Different tools, different results
We all choose the tools that fit our needs, not much else to it.
Regards
I personally wouldn't buy the 200mm f2 for portraits since I already have the 135GM and crop mode on a Sony A1 50mp would give me a 202.5 focal length with little impact on resolution. I can also take a photo with the 135GM and crop in on it in post and get a 200mm bokeh. That's the way the "lens compression" illusion works.
The 200mm f2 for sports is my purpose - especially since it's a "sports" lens. In crop mode for sports like football and soccer, I can have a 300mm f2, much needed for low light sports.
How is the rendering of the sigma compared to the Nikon? Hows the fall off and out of focus transition etc? pasblues wrote:
Yes, there’s just a matter of deciding if IS, build quality and extra weather sealing are deciding factors.
As I assesed my usage if this lens, I was coming from a Nikkor 200mm f2 VR II I use with my D850. That combination gives me an ability to crop in so deep, I don’t have to use a 300mm f2.8 and I get a critical extra f-stop for the low light sports I shoot.
But I wouldn’t use the Nikkor for portraits or model shoots because at 6.5lbs, it’s not worth it just to get bokeh I can get with my 135GM - lens too short for football or soccer.
So, for me, the Siggy gives me a solid quality but a lens I can carry and handhold. It also makes my footprint smaller for indoor arenas. This affects my work life quality as I shoot sports several times a week for publication.
It’s really hard to beat the quality of that Nikkor 200mm f2 especially when paired with the D850.
The weight factor and affordability of the Siggy was my tipping point. In test shots with a non moving subject, I could get my SS down to 1/60 with no camera shake combined with the A1. I don’t know when I would use that low of a SS, but the lens IS is nice to have. It’s also nice to know that I wouldn’t have to panic if I got caught in some light sprinkles or faced some humid conditions like indoor swimming. Rain jackets can close that gap, though, so that may not be a dealbreaker if that option is used with the Laowa.
White lenses, much as I agree with others who simply don’t like them, do tend to reflect off heat, keeping them cooler longer. How much this matters depends on shooting conditions. Even a black camera body absorbs heat out in the field in hot conditions so it’s a consideration.
I think when we consider cost, it does depend on hobby vs pro-heavy usage. If I was a hobbyist with plenty of money, it’s a great era of photography for choices. The Laowa would scratch the itch of owning and using this 200mm f2. It’s long enough to capture more non camera aware moments and subject isolation as long as one has the discipline to not have zoom capability like with a 70-200 f2.8, which a lot of folks already own.
In my decision, a rear filter is never something I would use but that might matter to some so good point.
fnzmf25 wrote:
How is the rendering of the sigma compared to the Nikon? Hows the fall off and out of focus transition etc?
In assessing "rendering" bear in mind that the Sigma I have is for my Sony (A1) and the Nikon is with the D850 - so it's not going to be an exact comparison just between the two 200mm f2 lenses. The camera bodies will factor.
Has anyone seen any recent info anywhere regarding the EF mount version’s AF performance adapted? Also, whether there has been any firmware updates already to improve performance from the earlier reviews?
pasblues wrote:
I personally wouldn't buy the 200mm f2 for portraits since I already have the 135GM and crop mode on a Sony A1 50mp would give me a 202.5 focal length with little impact on resolution. I can also take a photo with the 135GM and crop in on it in post and get a 200mm bokeh. That's the way the "lens compression" illusion works.
The 200mm f2 for sports is my purpose - especially since it's a "sports" lens. In crop mode for sports like football and soccer, I can have a 300mm f2, much needed for low light sports.
I always thought the quantity and quality of bokeh was achieved by some combination of DOF, focal length, distance between the sensor and the subject and subject and background. I agree that cropping in will get you the same perspective compression at 202.5 but you also have to multiply the aperture by the crop factor right? Wouldn't that get you a 202.5mm at f/2.7? At that point you may as well shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 and that has a different look (much more common) than 200 f/2.0.
Jan 26, 2026 at 09:05 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
I always thought the quantity and quality of bokeh was achieved by some combination of DOF, focal length, distance between the sensor and the subject and subject and background. I agree that cropping in will get you the same perspective compression at 202.5 but you also have to multiply the aperture by the crop factor right? Wouldn't that get you a 202.5mm at f/2.7? At that point you may as well shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 and that has a different look (much more common) than 200 f/2.0.
True, but the new Sigma 135 f/1.4 in crop mode or cropped would have a similar look to the 200 f/2.
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
I always thought the quantity and quality of bokeh was achieved by some combination of DOF, focal length, distance between the sensor and the subject and subject and background. I agree that cropping in will get you the same perspective compression at 202.5 but you also have to multiply the aperture by the crop factor right? Wouldn't that get you a 202.5mm at f/2.7? At that point you may as well shoot with a 70-200 f/2.8 and that has a different look (much more common) than 200 f/2.0.
Exposure is still the same at f2.0, but the equivalent DoF/bokeh will be multiplied by the crop factor. So a 200/2 will have shallower depth of field than the 135GM cropped (the Sigma 135/1.4 is closer).
Note that signal to noise ratio (SNR) is also multiplied when cropping, so at that point shooting a 70-200/2.8 and bumping ISO to make up for f2.8 is similar to the shorter lens cropped.
Went with the EF version. AF appears to not be much worse if at all, just based on Gordon’s bird shots. Thanks for the share.
It should be arriving here early next week. Will be testing it across all of my Sony, Fuji, and Canon bodies to see where I get the best AF performance.
It's here!! Mounting it on Canon bodies to play with first, but will definitely test with Sony bodies when I get some time. This thing is tiny compared to what I remember of the Canon version.
Anyone that has one, what firmware version are you currently on?
Mostly been posting on the Canon thread as I have the EF mount version, and it’s appearing to be the case that I’ll likely be relegated to using it on Canon bodies only for now due to compatibility issues. Tried adapting it via Metabones and Sigma MC-11 to the A7Cii, A7RV, and A9 today, and it failed to actuate autofocus at all. Same with Fuji XF bodies in case any of you are also Fuji shooters. Only difference there was that it was at least racking focus, just never successfully hitting.
This is not good. I would have picked EF version also to use it on multiple systems... Thanks for testing it.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Mostly been posting on the Canon thread as I have the EF mount version, and it’s appearing to be the case that I’ll likely be relegated to using it on Canon bodies only for now due to compatibility issues. Tried adapting it via Metabones and Sigma MC-11 to the A7Cii, A7RV, and A9 today, and it failed to actuate autofocus at all. Same with Fuji XF bodies in case any of you are also Fuji shooters. Only difference there was that it was at least racking focus, just never successfully hitting.
serhan_ wrote:
This is not good. I would have picked EF version also to use it on multiple systems... Thanks for testing it.
Np. I emailed Laowa Support yesterday since there’s really not much else to do about it. Figured I’d at least check that box off for due diligence. Will see what they say, if anything.
I noticed on their website that they do sell an EF to RF adapter for $80 with the lens. Wondering 1. Whether that performs better than the OEM Canon adapter, and 2. Whether they could do this for EF to Sony and Fuji. I wouldn’t be opposed to coughing up another $160 to be able to use it on those systems as well.
