Sigma 70-200mm and Sigma 70-200mm MKII

[Adam Rowney]

Hey everyone :)
What are the major differences between
the Sigma 70-200mm and
the Sigma 70-200mm MKII

The price is quite different, that I noticed.
Any first hand experience?
Thanks,
Adam

[wez130]

Hi, there isn't a mk2 version, there's the 70-200 F/4L, the 70-200 F/4 L IS (image stabilised), 70-200 F/2.8 L and the 70-200 F/2.8 L IS (image stabilised), the last two are more expensive because they are faster and work better in low light.

[Adam Rowney]

Sorry, i mean this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001044RIQ/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1209948426&sr=1-6
:P

[Steep]

Sigma don't make L glass wez.

Adam, at a guess the difference is in the lens coating, that seems to be the only recent 'improvement' in the rest of Sigmas range over the older versions, that and a price hike of course. Do you have a link to the cheaper model you were thinking of?

[Steep]

Just priced the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM Macro MKII at mifsuds and it's only £639 while the version 1 of that lens can be had from OneStop for £433.99

[Adam Rowney]

It seems like quite a lot more just for some extra coating on the lens, thats why I was wondering if there was a performance improvement.
Still, so very cheap for what it is.

[Slim3001]

Ok the sigma MK 0 is a 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX HSM lens NO extra coating and no Macro on it.

The Mk 1 sigma is a 70-200mm EX DG APO HSM lens and is not ment to be as sharp as the MK 0.

I have the MK 0 and love it

This MK 2 i cant say i seen befor

[wez130]

D'oh, i never read the sigma bit lol.

[puddleduck]

The DG and pre-DG versions are excellent.

I thought Sigma dropped the ball a bit with the MK I macro version, pretty soft and dreamy wide open @ 200mm. Maybr the MKII corrected this? The MKI was only on the market for about a year before being replaced with the MKI.

If you can get a DG or pre-DG used these should be excellent (ask the seller for sample images wide open 200mm, it should be sharp)