Help me I'm stupid Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 question

Dal

Dal

Is always right
Messages
2,636
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
I've noticed that alot of togs seem to love this lens.

I'm thinking about selling a limb to buy one but I do have a question.

First off, this is what I'm looking at http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/ViewProdDetails.asp?prod_code=PON07J000029&Prod_name=Sigma+70-200mm+f%2F2.8+APO+EX+DG+MACRO+HSM+II+with+FREE+2x+Converter&CAT_CODE=2&SUBCAT_CODE=204 Its the 70-200 f2.8 but comes with a free x2 tele convertor.

I currently have the good old sigma 70-300 f4-5.6, so my question is that with the 70-200 with x2 convertor it will become a 140-400 f5.6, will this struggle the same as my 70-300mm or will the superior glass and focus speed still make it a significant upgrade??

The lens will mainly be used for motorsports (hence wanting that extra reach) although I want to get into sports abit more aswell so wont be using the teleconvertor for that.

I just don't want to splash out that amount of money and not be happy about it.

Thanks. (y)
 
I woudlnt touch the x2 converter.. I ahve no idea what quality you have now with that lens.. but the 70-200 quality is excellent .. however it drops considerably with the x2

I am guessing someone will ahve a good shot taken with it.. but generally with x2 not much kop
 
KIPAX said:
I woudlnt touch the x2 converter.. I ahve no idea what quality you have now with that lens.. but the 70-200 quality is excellent .. however it drops considerably with the x2

I am guessing someone will ahve a good shot taken with it.. but generally with x2 not much kop
Click to expand...

That will explain why its free then. the 1.4 converter's are goo arent they? just wondering if its worth selling the x2 and buying the 1.4, or even 1.7
 
Can't comment on the Sigma setup, but I have the Canon alternatives. The 2x is usable so long as you have good light (just like the 100-400 L really) and whilst most seem to dislike the setup, I've had some great shots out of it...wildlife and sport! :)
 
purpleclouds said:
Can't comment on the Sigma setup, but I have the Canon alternatives. The 2x is usable so long as you have good light (just like the 100-400 L really) and whilst most seem to dislike the setup, I've had some great shots out of it...wildlife and sport! :)
Click to expand...

got any samples with the x2?
 
I have used the 1.4 with it and its good enough.. but it slows down the AF .. I only notice because I need and use fast AF .. you might not notice depending on what your doing.. There isnt a 1.7
 
purpleclouds said:
Can't comment on the Sigma setup, but I have the Canon alternatives. The 2x is usable so long as you have good light (just like the 100-400 L really) and whilst most seem to dislike the setup, I've had some great shots out of it...wildlife and sport! :)
Click to expand...

Anything is usable given the right conditions and i bet on a nice sunny day at minimum distance on a steady tripod you will get somehting usefull.. depends on the quality your used to.. Could you print the results out tack sharp as a large 30x20 inch poster ?

For me the x2 hasn't got anything going for it.. but it probably does have uses for others :)
 
never had a problem nor had slowing down with the 1.4x that i have noticed

i have been considering the 2x for some time now, just need to find a cheapish one
 
again,i can't speak for the sigma...but i have the sony equivalent 70-200 F/2.8,and regularly use it with the 1.4X T/C without any real affect on AF speed or IQ.another member on here has the same setup,but with the 2X T/C,which i tried out a few months ago,and i definately noticed the fall off in AF speed,and that was on a good day weather wise,so it put me off getting one...period!

as you say...you could always sell it and get a 1.4X T/C (y)
 
Agree with Kipax, siggy 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens, remains great with a sigma 1.4 TC, but not so good with a 2.0 TC
 
Les McLean said:
Agree with Kipax, siggy 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens, remains great with a sigma 1.4 TC, but not so good with a 2.0 TC
Click to expand...

Gonna agree with whats gone above - I've got the lens and both TCs and I normally find myself working around something rather than sticking the 2x on - but that maybe just because I'm lazy. I do carry it when I take out the 1.4 though just in case

Mines the older non-macro version siggi 70-200
 
Sounds like the sigma 100-300 f/4 would be more suited too you. Fast AF, very sharp and faster than the 70-200 + 2xTC. The 100-300 also works very well with the 1.4x TC.
 
Here are some shots from the Sigma 70-200 with a 2x TC:



278421984_4d0fa97703_o.jpg


291624101_782cabe067_o.jpg


384877929_802ba5baa0_o.jpg


384929157_dd5ad80d5c_o.jpg


278917444_f479796975_o.jpg


​

All wide open IIRC (EXIF should be intact)

These were all shot with the EX DG version which in my experience is sharper wide open then the newer Macro versions. Shots were all taken on a Nikon D70s (which is Nikon's sharpest ever camera), handheld. The combo is quite good, but you do need your lens to be sharp wide open for a 2x TC to work OK.
 
Thanks for all the posts so far. So its pretty clear the x2 will be sold on for a 1.4 instead.

alex, why do you think the 100-300 f4 would be better for me. I thought going for the f2.8 glass would be the best route?
 
puddleduck said:
Here are some shots from the Sigma 70-200 with a 2x TC:

All wide open IIRC (EXIF should be intact)

These were all shot with the EX DG version which in my experience is sharper wide open then the newer Macro versions. Shots were all taken on a Nikon D70s (which is Nikon's sharpest ever camera), handheld. The combo is quite good, but you do need your lens to be sharp wide open for a 2x TC to work OK.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting those up.

They do look nice and sharp at that zoom. I guess its the speed of the focus thats gonna be more important for me. Have you personally noticed the AF slowing down a lot with the x2 on there?

I'm just wondering aswell if its still going to be faster that my current 70-300mm as that sometimes hunts and it very annoying.

Also, do you have any motion shots with the x2 fitted?
 
Dal said:
Thanks for all the posts so far. So its pretty clear the x2 will be sold on for a 1.4 instead.

alex, why do you think the 100-300 f4 would be better for me. I thought going for the f2.8 glass would be the best route?
Click to expand...

becausewhen you add the 1.4 your 2.8 becomes an f4


i would still go the 2.8 route though :)
 
dal speed of focus.. i wasnt talking about hunting and that much speed.. i did say to most it would be hardly noticable.. with the sports I do.. I ahve to turn, point and shoot... even the slightest part of a second delay is noticable to me...
 
Dal said:
Thanks for posting those up.

They do look nice and sharp at that zoom. I guess its the speed of the focus thats gonna be more important for me. Have you personally noticed the AF slowing down a lot with the x2 on there?

I'm just wondering aswell if its still going to be faster that my current 70-300mm as that sometimes hunts and it very annoying.

Also, do you have any motion shots with the x2 fitted?
Click to expand...


The focus speed definately drops with a 2x onboard - this is really from the camera as the AF sensors are getting half the light, so its more of an AF lag thing rather than the lens working any slower.

I'll have a look if I have any moving shots, probably not, I tended to use this combo for street candids etc.

I'll put up a 100% crop when I get in, its quite good really for a zoom with a TC. I've not had the lens for a while, I replaced it with a Nikkor 70-200 VR (which wasn't any better with a 2x TC than the Sigma tbh!)
 
Dal said:
Thanks for all the posts so far. So its pretty clear the x2 will be sold on for a 1.4 instead.

alex, why do you think the 100-300 f4 would be better for me. I thought going for the f2.8 glass would be the best route?
Click to expand...

I'm going to stick my oar in here. I recently sold my Canon 70-200 F2.8 and bought a Sigma 100-300 F4
Why (People have told me I'm crazy)
Simple. I found myself hitting the 200mm stop and cursing more than I found myself at F2.8 or even F4.
If you know you will be needing F2.8 then the 70-200 is a very obvious choice - however if you need more reach then consider the 100-300 F4 and a 1.4x convertor (Very nice combo).

I also have the Sigma 2x convertor - it isn;t all that bad with regard to image quality. THe problem is the AF speed is noticably slower wheras I feel no difference with the 1.4x convertor.
 
Dal said:
alex, why do you think the 100-300 f4 would be better for me. I thought going for the f2.8 glass would be the best route?
Click to expand...

I got the impression you were going to use a teleconverter a considerable amount with the 70-200. And for motorsports you will most likely be at f/4-f/8 anyway. The 100-300 is a popular choice for budget motorsports, the 120-300 f/2.8 being the bigger brother. If you would make good use of the f/2.8 from the 70-200 get that and a 1.4x TC, but it seems silly to get a 70-200 if for the majority of its use, there will be a TC attached.
 
KIPAX said:
dal speed of focus.. i wasnt talking about hunting and that much speed.. i did say to most it would be hardly noticable.. with the sports I do.. I ahve to turn, point and shoot... even the slightest part of a second delay is noticable to me...
Click to expand...
ah right so if it doesnt hunt with the 1.4 on then its still going to be better than my current lens lol.

I've seen your ice hockey shots so I can see what you mean about turn point and shoot, i struggled at a game on saturday with my kit. I'm too embarrassed to post the photo's up.

puddleduck said:
The focus speed definately drops with a 2x onboard - this is really from the camera as the AF sensors are getting half the light, so its more of an AF lag thing rather than the lens working any slower.

I'll have a look if I have any moving shots, probably not, I tended to use this combo for street candids etc.

I'll put up a 100% crop when I get in, its quite good really for a zoom with a TC. I've not had the lens for a while, I replaced it with a Nikkor 70-200 VR (which wasn't any better with a 2x TC than the Sigma tbh!)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, the slower AF, does it often make you miss shots and bug you or is it not too much or a problem? Would really appreciate seeing some motion shots if you have them. Just with the x2 on as there are loads i've seen with just the lens. thanks.

alexisonfire said:
I got the impression you were going to use a teleconverter a considerable amount with the 70-200. And for motorsports you will most likely be at f/4-f/8 anyway. The 100-300 is a popular choice for budget motorsports, the 120-300 f/2.8 being the bigger brother. If you would make good use of the f/2.8 from the 70-200 get that and a 1.4x TC, but it seems silly to get a 70-200 if for the majority of its use, there will be a TC attached.
Click to expand...
I get what your saying. But if the 70-200 with a 1.4 fitted is not any slower at focusing than without it, then it would give the 70-200 more flexibility over the 120-300f4 as I could use it for f2.8 if i needed. Plus theres the cost difference, it's another £100 for the 120-300f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top