Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS

JulesP

JulesP

Messages
2,748
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone here had any real life experience with this lens?
I have read all the reviews online about it but they dont give real user opinions. It is suggested that it is not as sharp as the Nikon 70-200 VR II but that is about twice the price:eek:
I had my heart set on the Nikon but being realistic I know I cannot afford / justify it so have decided that it will either be the Sigma one (new) or a used Nikon 70-200 VR I but that only offers up to 3 stops of stabilization and is apparently known to be soft at the edges on full frame.
I will be using it on my D7000 with a view to possible full frame upgrade in the future. I already have the Sigma 70-200 HSM II which I recently bought from here but with my dodgy hands, I now realise that I need some sort of stabilization for handheld shots.

So - any comments or opinions?

Thanks
Julian
 
Like when buying any high end piece of equipment I debated for a long time over which way to go and looked at options from all the manufacturers when I was looking to buy my 70-200.

I discounted the Tokina straight away as while I love the build quality of there glass I couldn't find enough info on comparisons between it and the rest and didn't know anyone else who had one. In my opinion everyone gets caught up too much in test charts etc. anyway and real world circumstances are much more important. While reviews etc. are useful I always prefer to hear first hand from end users or try something myself before making a decision on what for me is a fairly expensive item.

I read many reviews on the Tamron Vs the Sigma O.S and the Tamron pretty much always came in a poor second. The Tamron seemed to be only every recommended on price and that was mainly due to how over priced the Sigma was on launch. For a couple of hundred pound more the Sigma is better built, has better A.F, better optics and has the O.S. Having had Tarmon and Sigma gear before I also know that while both can have issues with lenses, Tamron certainly appear to have more issues with back focusing etc.

Deciding between the Nikon version and the Sigma was more difficult. I borrowed a friends AF-S 80-200 and had a play with his 70-200 vr2 and was impressed with the quality of the build but hated the weight and bulk of the 80-200 but was blown away by the optics and the V.R on the 70-200.

Then the decision came down to cost. The Sigma is well worth the extra couple of hundred pounds more than the Tamron, so that was a no brainer. I decided that the Nikon was not worth more than twice the cost of the Sigma for me and eventually decided to run with it after much deliberation. For the same price as it would of cost me to buy the Nikon even second hand, I was able to buy the Sigma, a D300 as a spare body and a 2x teleconverter and still had some change left over.

Now that I have had the Sigma for a little while I can honestly say I am delighted with it. I have no issues with it all, the A.F in real world conditions is super fast and I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon 70-200 even though test charts and reviews online say it is not as sharp in the corners, in my opinion from using both it is sharper than the 80-200. I let my friend who has both the 80-200 and the 70-200 have a play with the Sigma and he agrees.

No doubt that there is likely poor copies of the Sigma around as you would expect and this in no doubt accounts for some of the reviews etc. online. My copy is perfect, if it had not of been I would of sold it and got the Nikon.

I let TonyNI on here have a play with it as he was having the same problems making a decision as I was and he went straight out and bought one as well.
 
Thanks Tommy - that's exactly the sort of reply I was after - real world experience rather than test chart:)
Makes my decision that bit easier.
 
JulesP said:
Thanks Tommy - that's exactly the sort of reply I was after - real world experience rather than test chart:)
Makes my decision that bit easier.
Click to expand...

No worries mate. Just to throw another spanner in the works Tamron have a new version of theirs coming out with their newer motor and V.C no prices available yet but might be worth a look although I dear say it will be more expensive than the £700 odd quid that panamoz are charging for the Sigma.
 
I've never really got on with Tamron lenses myself so I think I'll discount one of those already. Think it's gonna be the Siggy to be honest. Don't think my photography skills really warrant the Nikon either at the moment:)
 
I have the 70-200 VR1 on my d700 having recently changed from a canon 7d with Sigma 70-200 HSM II. The difference is night and day. Cant say how impressive the nikon is in comparison. Was a little worried about reported corner sharpness and vignetting on FF, but havent noticed any issue with sharpness and lightroom lens correction takes care of the rest. Im sure the Sigma OS is a big step up from the HSM II but a key consideration for me was that the Nikon will always hold its value much better, particularly if bought second hand.
 
I had the HSM II until it died a horrible death recently. I've now got an OS and it is fantastic. It is noticably sharper and the AF is very fast and accurate, the OS also works very well.

I loved my HSM II and was a bit upset when it went, but this OS lens is better in every way. The Nikon VRII may very well be better, I don't know as I've never used one, but I doubt it's going to be twice as good as the Sigma.
 
Like tommy mentioned, I bought one after debating for awhile on the nikon. I'm quite critical of my gear, sometimes too OTT as tommy will tell you. I've put mine through a few weddings and have been very surprised at the performance from this. Creamy bokeh and accurate AF without any tuning. I find it to be plenty sharp at 2.8 and razor sharp at f4
 
Thanks for all the replies guys. I guess if it's good enough to be used for weddings then it's more than good enough for me:)
Just need to save the last few pennies now.
 
JulesP said:
Thanks for all the replies guys. I guess if it's good enough to be used for weddings then it's more than good enough for me:)
Just need to save the last few pennies now.
Click to expand...

There was one in the classifieds for £600
 
I was just given 600 by my brother and this sigma is very high on my list given that I will sell my Nikon 18 - 200. I also want new.. spending money is a real brain ache
 
greenoak said:
I was just given 600 by my brother and this sigma is very high on my list given that I will sell my Nikon 18 - 200. I also want new.. spending money is a real brain ache
Click to expand...

get it from panomoz pal. I got mine new from there 730 express delivery in 2 days
 
Never ordered from there but 730 holy mackrell
 
Yeah I think it's gonna be Panamoz for me too despite the fact you only get one year warranty where Sigma UK give 3 on their EX range
 
neil_g said:
Careful, I've read reports of sigma refusing to touch grey imports completely.
Click to expand...

They don't. Panamoz provides a collect and return warranty. My experience with lenses are if they are gonna go faulty its usually early on or indeed right from the offset. The warranty issue didn't bother me in the slightest.

Proper gear insurance is better than any warranty!
 
Yeah I've heard this but Panamoz deal with the warranty themselves and also offer a replacement scheme in the first year rather than repair
 
Thanks Tony - thats quite an informative write up:thumbs:

BTW - I have all my gear properly insured through Aduuki so should be ok on that front
 
Last edited:
Another vote for the Siggy OS here. I got mine a few weeks ago with the money from my insurance payout after my HSM 2 got destroyed.

It is a much better lens than its predecessor, and I couldn't be happier with it.
 
Is this ok on a d90? Or is it set up fir full frame? Thanks
 
It's designed for full frame but will work perfectly well on D90 (same field of view as 105-300 on full frame)
 
Soda Farl said:
Will be even sharper on a crop as you are only using the centre of the lens.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily Sonsy. The lens will definitely perform better on full frame in most cases. They lens has to work harder on crop sensor. There's another post about it on here
 
TonyNI said:
Not necessarily Sonsy. The lens will definitely perform better on full frame in most cases. They lens has to work harder on crop sensor. There's another post about it on here
Click to expand...

Mmm its sharper at 2.8 on my d300 than it is on my d700.
 
Soda Farl said:
Mmm its sharper at 2.8 on my d300 than it is on my d700.
Click to expand...

Do your research on this one son, lenses will delivery better resolution / sharpness on full frame than on crop.
 
TonyNI said:
Do your research on this one son, lenses will delivery better resolution / sharpness on full frame than on crop.
Click to expand...

Usually true, certainly with better quality lenses, and always true in the centre where as you say the lens is not working so hard on full frame.

But the area outside the crop sensor's image area, the bit you never see on a cropper, may not be as good, depending on how much edge sharpness falls off.

Might be a slight difference on wide angles or very fast lenses, but less likely at longer focal lengths that tend to have less edge fall-off.
 
TonyNI said:
Do your research on this one son, lenses will delivery better resolution / sharpness on full frame than on crop.
Click to expand...

I don't need too I can base my opinion on my own experience. Having used the lens on both my D300 and my D700 it is sharper at 2.8 on my D300. By f/4 both are razor sharp as you would expect and I can see no difference between the 2 in terms of sharpness.
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
I don't need too I can base my opinion on my own experience. Having used the lens on both my D300 and my D700 it is sharper at 2.8 on my D300. By f/4 both are razor sharp as you would expect and I can see no difference between the 2 in terms of sharpness.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to micro adjust the lens a little on your D300?
 
Soda Farl said:
Like when buying any high end piece of equipment I debated for a long time over which way to go and looked at options from all the manufacturers when I was looking to buy my 70-200.

I discounted the Tokina straight away as while I love the build quality of there glass I couldn't find enough info on comparisons between it and the rest and didn't know anyone else who had one. In my opinion everyone gets caught up too much in test charts etc. anyway and real world circumstances are much more important. While reviews etc. are useful I always prefer to hear first hand from end users or try something myself before making a decision on what for me is a fairly expensive item.

I read many reviews on the Tamron Vs the Sigma O.S and the Tamron pretty much always came in a poor second. The Tamron seemed to be only every recommended on price and that was mainly due to how over priced the Sigma was on launch. For a couple of hundred pound more the Sigma is better built, has better A.F, better optics and has the O.S. Having had Tarmon and Sigma gear before I also know that while both can have issues with lenses, Tamron certainly appear to have more issues with back focusing etc.

Deciding between the Nikon version and the Sigma was more difficult. I borrowed a friends AF-S 80-200 and had a play with his 70-200 vr2 and was impressed with the quality of the build but hated the weight and bulk of the 80-200 but was blown away by the optics and the V.R on the 70-200.

Then the decision came down to cost. The Sigma is well worth the extra couple of hundred pounds more than the Tamron, so that was a no brainer. I decided that the Nikon was not worth more than twice the cost of the Sigma for me and eventually decided to run with it after much deliberation. For the same price as it would of cost me to buy the Nikon even second hand, I was able to buy the Sigma, a D300 as a spare body and a 2x teleconverter and still had some change left over.

Now that I have had the Sigma for a little while I can honestly say I am delighted with it. I have no issues with it all, the A.F in real world conditions is super fast and I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon 70-200 even though test charts and reviews online say it is not as sharp in the corners, in my opinion from using both it is sharper than the 80-200. I let my friend who has both the 80-200 and the 70-200 have a play with the Sigma and he agrees.

No doubt that there is likely poor copies of the Sigma around as you would expect and this in no doubt accounts for some of the reviews etc. online. My copy is perfect, if it had not of been I would of sold it and got the Nikon.

I let TonyNI on here have a play with it as he was having the same problems making a decision as I was and he went straight out and bought one as well.
Click to expand...

LOLLLLLLLLLL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top