Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM

[Gravity-Slave]

Hey everybody,

Just looking for a bit of advice on a potential lens purchase

I'm predominantely a sports photographer shooting in fairly low light environments, (Mountain bike tracks for the most part) And i was looking at buying the lens listed in the title. I was just wondering if anyone would be able to share any experience that they have had with the lens. I use a Nikon D5000 body at the moment. Also if anyone had any suggestions for a cheaper alternative that would still provide good results I would be very interested as I'm a student and pretty much skint!

Gravity-Slave

 

[Deasy]

The Sigma is already the 'cheap' alternative unless you are going to make your own lens with coke bottles and toilet rolls.

Maybe explore the Tamron versions which are considerably better?

 

[Matt]

The Sigma is already the 'cheap' alternative unless you are going to make your own lens with coke bottles and toilet rolls.

Maybe explore the Tamron versions which are considerably better?

thats a bit harsh on the sigma, it is capable of some very sharp images with pretty fast tracking.



70-200 f2.8 HSM


70 - 200F2.8 HSM

 

[newbeee]

Pretty pleased with mine, and for less than a third of the price of the Nikon.

 

[mumrar]

Ah, yet another person putting down every single lens with that name because some may have QC issues. I'm perfectly happy with mine and it produces the sharpest images I've ever captured by some margin.

That last one is practically a 100% crop due to my poor reactions!

 

[JDP]

Ah, yet another person putting down every single lens with that name because some may have QC issues. I'm perfectly happy with mine and it produces the sharpest images I've ever captured by some margin.

That last one is practically a 100% crop due to my poor reactions!

why did i have to choose Tamron over this lens! :bang:

 

[jj_glos]

I've got the mkII macro version and have been very happy with it.





One under floodlights:

 

[csedgbeer]

i've got the Mk1 version, and am very pleased with it , only slight niggle is the 1.8m min focus distance, but spose thats not what the lens is designed for!

this is a 100% crop, i think it's sharp enough compared to the holy L's!

Large

 

[White Rose]

The Sigma is already the 'cheap' alternative unless you are going to make your own lens with coke bottles and toilet rolls.

Maybe explore the Tamron versions which are considerably better?

Reviews of the Tamron vs Sigma suggest that the Tamron is considered to be quite leisurely in the focussing department compared to the Sigma. This may be a factor worth considering if the main use of the lens will be sports shooting.

 

[Mike.P]

Non Macro, Non HSM MKI version.

 

[Matt]

its a choice, on paper at least, between ultimate image quality and focusing, but if you look at it from a practical point of view, if the tamrom locks focus quick enough it will be a nice shot but the sigma is more likely to lock on and deliver a useable shot. If image quality is everything, then save up for Nikkor lenses.