Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM

PeteMo

PeteMo

Messages
1,521
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
No
Yep that's quite a mouthful. Delivered today (from Panamoz) so thought I'd post a couple of shots testing the OS in low light. Nothing scientific or special :-

All shot with my 5D (rather than my 5DII as I expect better from that anyway) @ f2.8, 200mm and ISO 1600.

In kitchen, no overhead lighting. The only lighting is the under cupboard unit lights and a low watt corner lamp behind me to the left about 20ft from subject.

1. 1/60 sec focus point on "Dettol"

Sigma_70-200_test.jpg


2. 100% crop picture 1

Sigma_test_3.jpg


3. 1/20 sec 100% crop (focus point on "Yoghurt Raisins"

Sigma_70-200_test_2.jpg


As you can see, pretty good considering the lowlight and grain from ISO 1600.

I expect it to be even better at around f4 and blistering in the daylight !!

See what you think in case you're considering this lens instead of the Canon.
 
Lens looks good and sharp but so much noise! (From a D700 user.)
 
post a couple of pics in good light and let us see what the lens can do !! im looking into buying this lens over the nikon but a bit dubious
 
The fact that's it's better on a D700 is a given guys. I put it on my 5D simply because the images were the WORST I was expecting.

I'll try and post some on my Mark II when I get a minute :thumbs:
 
PeteMo said:
The fact that's it's better on a D700 is a given guys. I put it on my 5D simply because the images were the WORST I was expecting.

I'll try and post some on my Mark II when I get a minute :thumbs:
Click to expand...

It still won't be as good as the Nikon :lol: :nikon:
 
Here's the same shots with my 5DII -

Settings: 200mm f2.8 ISO 3200 60th sec

1.

Sigma_70-200_test_4.jpg


2. 100% crop

Sigma_70-200_test_5.jpg


Think I'm gonna sell up and get a D700 :lol:
 
Cheers Mike.

I have to say that 80% of my use will be in decent light.
 
Nod said:
Lens looks good and sharp but so much noise! (From a D700 user.)
Click to expand...

Lol we had this debate recently. Its only because the shadows are under by 1.3 stops. Noise should be almost nothing at that iso on that body

Edit: just saw it was the 5D not 2. Then saw the 5D2 and saw it was still under for higher iso ;)

I want this lens...think I'll get this and a 2x
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
Lol we had this debate recently. Its only because the shadows are under by 1.3 stops. Noise should be almost nothing at that iso on that body

Edit: just saw it was the 5D not 2. Then saw the 5D2 and saw it was still under for higher iso ;)

I want this lens...think I'll get this and a 2x
Click to expand...

Don't even think about it Phil just do it.
 
Final one :

200mm ISO 800 @ 1/20th sec f2.8 (5D II)

Sigma_70-200_final.jpg


Now I think that's pretty good, handheld at 1/20th @ full zoom in dim light. No-one is ever gonna crop 100% anyway.

Sharp enough for me (in a kitchen anyway :lol:)
 
PeteMo said:
Stop stirring it Mr :lol:

It's "atmosphere" not noise, anyway :thumbs:
Click to expand...


:lol:


Damn the lack of smilies in the quick reply box! I can never remember the codes.
 
Im looking at one for my D90 but I will go full frame next year
 
Were the shots from the 5D and 5DII shot raw or jpeg? Any in camera sharpening?
 
Aha! I was just asking about this lens in my thread on 70-200 models. Looking well good on the 5D2, should be much sweeter on my D800. I might just go for one of these, been pondering on the Nikon Vr1 for a bit, the II is just so expensive. Especially after just buying a D800+24-70. I could wait a while and hope a VR II pops up in classified, or save a bundle and get this now. Hmmm ...
 
Does this lens compare well to the canon 70-200 F4? I know I can google, but real user experience from people that have used both would be nice :) My f4 jobbie is very sharp, and I bought an 85L instead of the 70-200 2.8mkII as it's so reliable, even more so with my shiny new 5dmk3 (not bragging, just super chuffed that I've got a nice camera for the first time since my 35mm film one when I was 14 :D)
 
Reviews are very varied on this lens. None of them bad per say, but the likes of photozone - who are usually reliable, only give it 3/5 stars for sharpness. They say it can be soft wide open in comparison to the Nikons. Now I'm wondering if an 80-200 AF-S would be a better choice? I loved the old one I had, a 20yr old model - razor sharp, brilliant colours, only it lacked VR & a collar.
 
Cagey75 said:
Reviews are very varied on this lens. None of them bad per say, but the likes of photozone - who are usually reliable, only give it 3/5 stars for sharpness. They say it can be soft wide open in comparison to the Nikons. Now I'm wondering if an 80-200 AF-S would be a better choice? I loved the old one I had, a 20yr old model - razor sharp, brilliant colours, only it lacked VR & a collar.
Click to expand...

I'm just about to review some wedding shots and I know I shot quite a few wide open. I'll report back once I've had a look through.

At the end of the day, I wasn't expecting amazing results at f2.8 otherwise I'd have gone for the Canon IS mark II. But for me if this can get anywhere near it at HALF the price I'm a happy man ;)

Really depends on your budget and how much reliance is placed on online reviews.
 
Cool, if you could post up some 2.8 results :) I'm eager to fill that gap, don't have anything 200mm since my move to FX. Longest I have is the 105. And of course, that decides not to be 2.8 whenever it feels it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top