Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS Latest Version

rookies

rookies

Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Has anyone got this lens as I am now thinking of having one of these at they are at a nice price over the canon version... But is there much difference between them.. I guess the canon is faster are Focusing??
 
Hi rookies, I used to have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 ISLII and took delivery of a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS a few days ago so have played with both. Bottom line is that the Canon version is better made and a touch sharper but the Sigma is relatively lightweight and plenty sharp enough for me both with and without TCs. Both have similarly good IS systems. If you do not mind the weight and cost and want the ultimate in IQ I would go for the Canon. The Sigma though is 95% as good for about 2/3 of the cost. Doubt you will be unhappy with either. Hope this helps.

Gary
 
Last edited:
To be honest I just want nice lens that is good to take images of my daughter running in the field.. Ive not a big pocket I need be careful on my money. That why i was looking at the sigma.. Is it quick at focusing with AI Focus and Servo Focus??
 
Hi rookies

The Sigma will do that job very nicely.

I cannot comment on focus speeds on Canon bodies since I now shoot Nikon. However, the AF speed is plenty good enough for birds in flight so I suspect will be good enough to focus on your daughter.

To illustrate sharpness, below is a quick shot taken of a dunnock at 200mm with a x2TC onboard on a Nikon D7100 (so 600mm FL) stopped down a third, so f6.3. This is about a 50% crop.

Looks ok to me !

dunnock1_zps536e47da.jpg
 
That looks pretty sharp indeed. a Sign x2TC on it?? Does it auto focus with the TC and does it lose any stop
 
BTW, a bit of a tip since you mentioned not-deep-pockets.

The cheapest UK price is with Tesco Direct here:http://www.tesco.com/direct/sigma-7...ed-hsm-nikon-fit-lens/497-7275.prd?pageLevel=

If you have any Tesco vouchers you can boost them to get twice the face value of the voucher off the price of the lens. I got over GBP200 off !

Waiting to hear from Sigma as to whether or not it is eligible for the 3 year warranty but I see no reason why noy ?

Regards

Gary
 
The original image is very sharp. I find images going in-and-out of Photobucket seems to soften them. Might be my imagination ?

Anyway, yes you lose x2 stops. AF is though still automatic and fairly brisk. Makes a great walkabout wildlife lens.
 
Very Very tempted now as this is a lighter lens too as I was worried about the weight of the canon too.. Is the lens a bit smaller too?
 
As I could get this Sigma Brand new etc for £760 or go a used Canon 70-200 F2.8 MKI not even got IS on it for £750 with 12 month warranty which would you go for
 
Hi rookies

The Sigma is not a small lens but is compact and certainly smaller than the Canon version. It is also significantly lighter. You can check the numbers online but in real-life shooting the Sigma is much more hand holdable and I really do not like monopods.

IMVHO, you cannot go far wrong with the Sigma. Others may disagree ?
 
Hmmmmm tempting lol
 
To me it is a no-brainer, in your position I would not even consider the Canon 70-200 f2.8 or 70-200f2.8ISL V1 and I have had both.

I would have EITHER the Sigma 70-200f2.8 os OR the Canon 70-200f2.8ISL v2. The latter is clearly very expensive but as mentioned above very good.

Will leave you to decide. Gotta retire now. Weather permitting I might to try to find a glossy ibis in the morning very, very early.

Good luck with your decision.

Regards

Gary
 
Last edited:
Thank mate. will try and fine a demo of the sigma tmr as the canon is too pricey for me as I won't be using it a lot to justify the cost. If the sigma can get sharp nice images then I be happy if it quick at focus on Servo Focus I be happy
 
Finally, have just noticed you put up the thread about IS. My view is that if you have:

a. decent light
b. a decent high iso capable camera
c. shooting short FL lenses
d a monoposd or tripod

then IS is handy but not essential.

However, in dim Winter light shooting wildlife so needing long lenses IS is essential. So it depends upon what you are shooting, when and what with.

Cheers

Gary
 
tamrons 70-200 is very good too..

ive tried the 70-200 of canon, and on another day the sigma, which was faster to focus :O but on a different body, which surprised me, and it should of been other way round
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, bought about a year ago. I've never owned the Canon version (can't afford to) so can't compare the two.
I use the lens extensively for low light action sports and it does the job very well at way less than half the price of the Canon.

I don't use IS often but I don't have a steady hand so if I'm shooting something stationary at low light I will use it otherwise not.

I would certainly recommend it.
 
What made you go for thst over canon f4 non is as looking at thst now. I've come conclusion I can't afford cannon top range.
 
That extra stop makes a big difference when shooting indoor or low light action.
 
rookies said:
What made you go for thst over canon f4 non is as looking at thst now. I've come conclusion I can't afford cannon top range.
Click to expand...

If you were shooting landscapes as your main subject and a few weddings in between you'll want the canon f/4. It is simply more convenient and delivers amazing performance from f/4. I can't see much wrong with the sigma to be honest, but personally would want to see "Art" on it.
 
the f 2.8 is the way to go if you can afford it here is a photo taken with a 70- 200 non is f4 it was taken on a cloudy day taken on a 50d at 200mm/f4/ iso/400/1/1250 i didnt hit the focus point bang on but it gives you a idea


200mm by hoochy1, on Flickr
 
If you framed him tighter in portrait format background blur will be much nicer. f/2.8 will give more blur at 200, but not that significantly. Going to 300 would have far more significant effect.

hoochy1 said:
the f 2.8 is the way to go if you can afford it here is a photo taken with a 70- 200 non is f4 it was taken on a cloudy day taken on a 50d at 200mm/f4/ iso/400/1/1250 i didnt hit the focus point bang on but it gives you a idea


200mm by hoochy1, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
hoochy1 said:
the f 2.8 is the way to go if you can afford it here is a photo taken with a 70- 200 non is f4 it was taken on a cloudy day taken on a 50d at 200mm/f4/ iso/400/1/1250 i didnt hit the focus point bang on but it gives you a idea


200mm by hoochy1, on Flickr
Click to expand...
There nowt wrong with that image at all it pretty sharp and good for such a good price lens. Are you happy with that lens..as I like to keep money for other things
 
yea its a good lens and you could walk about with it all day and it would not kill your arms i have the 50-500 sigma os and it would kill your arms if you hand hold it for more than a hour or two


ps wex have them for £495 new
 
Last edited:
Ive Demoed a few of the lens mention here today..

Canon 70-200 F4 ( Nice lightweight lens and Servo Focusing on it was smooth lovely. Images after processing seem good for the price of the lens)
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS ( again Nice lens but heavier and might be a pain to carry for a few hours... Focusing on Servo Focus it was quite good but not as smooth as the canon F4. Image after processing I am amaze sharp images and colours are quite good)
Canon 200 F2.8 (again nice lens very quick with focusing and lightweight. But Fix focal length not too sure if I can cope at 200mm all the time so going to look at what focal length is ideal for me as the lens was lovely. Images after processing is Great can't fault..

Lastly the Canon Beast of 70-200 2.8 MKII IS Lovely lens HEAVY though but the price I just don't think I use it enough to justify the cost of the lens..
 
Hi rookies

Yo have obviously tested out some nice glass.

Did you try out the Canon 70-200 f4ISL as well ?

Some say the non-IS is sharper and is a great recommendation from hoochy1. I cannot believe it is sharper though since the IS version is fantastically sharp. The 70-200 f4 ISL lenses are not too expensive second hand and a very good lightweight alternative to the f2.8s.

Problem you have is that losing the stop of light makes indoor shooting much, much trickier. If you had a 5D2/3 or 1Dx then you can compensate by pushing up the iso. Most Canon bodies get a bit flakey at iso 1600 though.

Outdoor both Canon 70-200f4s are great.

The 200 prime to me is a no-go, much as I adored this lens (had two copies) it just gives you no flexibility.

So which way are you going to jump ? You are definitely in a kiddie-in-a sweetie-shop scenario.

Best wishes

Gary
 
Hi

I have read that too thst the non IS f4 is sharper if it is then it no brainer to go for that. But the sigma is very sharp too but I though focusing wasn't up to canon standard.

They didn't have the IS version of f4 in store
 
I'm in a similar boat. I have the canon 60d and looking at either of the f4L, the sigma 2.8 or even possibly the 70-300 is usm. Still undecided as all seem great lenses haha. Personally I will be taking photos of animals at zoos and pics of the kids/portraits... so thinking the sigma 2.8 or the f4l is.. preferably one of the cheaper 2 if suitable though haha (damn budgets)
 
rookies said:
Hi

I have read that too thst the non IS f4 is sharper if it is then it no brainer to go for that. But the sigma is very sharp too but I though focusing wasn't up to canon standard.

They didn't have the IS version of f4 in store
Click to expand...

There are some small differences between canon f/4 versions, but IS would be the main one. Sharpness is pretty similar (i.e. great from f4). If sigma isn't focusing quite right then 2.8 won't make the matter any better, but worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top