Sigma 70-200 on a small DX body? (to replace 18-200?)

Zarch

Zarch

Messages
1,039
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got a Nikon 18-200 that I rarely use because the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is semi-permanently attached to my D3100.

But my little girl will be performing in some gala's and fete's (dancing) again this coming year and I think I might need more zoom than the 17-50 provides. And after loving the advantage that 2.8 gives I can't get a 70-200 out of mind. :cuckoo:

I'm in the same situation as I was last year, but as the weather was that crap last summer, I never had to the opportunity to try the 18-200 in this scenario as every gala got cancelled due to the terrible weather!! :(

Anyway, there is no way I can afford the Nikon 70-200 lens, so i've been thinking about a 2nd hand Sigma 70-200. (either the 2007 or the 2010 versions)

But the following image I found on Flickr is putting me off somewhat.


D3100 w/Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Lens by Mr. Chris Nauman, on Flickr

Is the lens too big for a smaller DX body? D3100 / D3200 / 5100 / 5200/ 7000 etc all the same?

It certainly looks so on that evidence.

The weight of a 2010 Sigma 70-200 is almost 3 times heavier than a Nikon 18-200 (1430g v 561g)

And its longer in length too: 197mm v 96mm (non zoomed) / 162mm (zoomed)

Could you comfortably hand hold the d3100 / 70-200 combo? Or would I need to get the monopod out?

Is it going to be a little front heavy?

The research on weights and sizes has got me thinking to persevere with my 18-200. It will be outdoors in sunshine (hopefully) when I will need the extra length.

But will I be able to get away with f5.6?
And will the sharpness be acceptable to me?

Suppose I won't find out until I try? :thinking:
 
Last edited:
My experience comes from the older 70-210f2.8 on a Fuji S3 and S5 (one plastic one metal - read Nikon F80 and D200) body and the balance is spot on. It's heavy, certainly, but the weight is located in the rear of the lens making it nice to handle. For that reason it also balances nicely on a ballhead.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about it. I've used lenses like that on a D5000 and D3000 before. You'll be holding the lens anyway, your right hand will just be balancing the camera and using the controls. It'll be fine.
 
A 70-200 f2.8 will always look big anyway no matter what body you put it on.

Don't worry about the looks. You soon get used to it and I found that after any other lens just looks puny in comparison! You can make it a little more discrete by not putting the flower cap on the front.

Undoubtedly it will be heavy. I personally hang mine from the tripod mount using a quick strap when not in use and it's fine. But yes, handholding for long periods will test your endurance. In which case use a monopod.
 
The d3100 and the Sigma 70-200 combo is fine, you really shoultn't need a tripod, I was doing handhelf 1/15 shutter speed without an issue.

I ran this for a few weeks.

It is a great lens and well worth the upgrade!

The Sigma 500mm lenses are front heavy on any DX camera and you need to use a monopod
 
Phil Young said:
Do you have one?

I read somewhere that it has some pretty major flaws in af consistancy...
Click to expand...

Yes the samples linked above are my own, I actually owned copies of it twice. I never had any issues with them, they were used mainly for travel but I also did some motorsport with it (usually tracking 100mph+).

I never understood why it never took off, 70-200 is massively popular on FF so an equivalent on crop but much smaller and lighter seemed like a no brainier to me.
 
ukaskew said:
Yes the samples linked above are my own, I actually owned copies of it twice. I never had any issues with them, they were used mainly for travel but I also did some motorsport with it (usually tracking 100mph+).

I never understood why it never took off, 70-200 is massively popular on FF so an equivalent on crop but much smaller and lighter seemed like a no brainier to me.
Click to expand...

Found something... didn't have to look too hard. Realised why I never pursued this lens!

The AF is a bit unsure at times but the AF accuracy of the (serviced) sample was generally fine.

- photozone

All three purchased-retail-new copies of this lens I tried strongly front-focused on both my Canon EOS Rebel XSi / 450D and Canon EOS 40D DSLRs. All three focused consistently, but all focused well in front of the subject. On top of that, one lens had a smudge on an inner lens surface. Yes, there is a chance a forth copy could focus properly, but 0 for 3 is not a good showing and I have to stop somewhere. So my conclusion is that, if relying on AF, this is an extremely soft lens - unusable until f/5.6 at 50mm and f/11 at 150mm in my opinion.

- the digital picture

This lenses autofocus motor broke twice on me, very early on. The first time within maybe the first 500 focuses, the next within the next 200 focuses.

- 3rd review on Fred Miranda.

.......perhaps that could be a big reason why it's not taken off...
 
That 50-150 sounded good until those reviews. LOL.

I might have to visit a local store with my 3100 and see what a 70-200 actually feels and looks like. I don't have any idea right now.

Mmmmmmm, what to do.
 
I used a 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma on my D3000 some while ago (it was my first camera) and the lens is fantastic. Obviously its massive and quite heavy, I wouldnt fancy shooting with slow shutter speeds myself but apart from that it really is very good. I dont have any pictures which do it justice unfortunately as at that time I was a complete beginner. The only good thing was the lens is big enough to steady the front of the lens quite nicely with your whole hand, as opposed to smaller lenses which can sometimes be a bit awkward.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Dale, look very nice.

Still think I need to physically handle the lens myself before making the jump. :)

Gonna use my 18-200 tomorrow and see how I get on, reacquaint myself with it somewhat.
 
Last edited:
My suggestion would be to try and get hold of one to try either in a store or hire for a weekend. If it feels front heavy you could always try fitting a grip to your camera. I always fit a grip to my cameras. It helps the balance, if I flip to portrait orientation then the buttons are still in the same place and having double the battery life helps :-)

Edit: ignore the bit about the grip. I now know there isn't one available
 
Last edited:
There is no Nikon grip for the D3100 and the electric contacts aren't there so it gets a bit messy I believe.

One hand on the body and one hand on the lens and its perfect.

With the D3100 you use the main LCD to change settings, so it is nice and easy to let the camera hang lens down and change settings. I've just upgraded to the D7000 and its not easy holding the camera up so I can see the top LED screen, but I hit the Info button and use the main screen.

I wouldn't use a neck strap with it, that would hurt, change to using a sling like the Q Strap or RS Straps. (I've got the Q strap and love it)
 
My bad. I've always been Canon so don't know a huge amount about Nikon. A waste of a post then. However I'd still try and hire one for a few days

Definitely agree with using something like a qstrap. I use a black rapid and love it
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
My bad. I've always been Canon so don't know a huge amount about Nikon. A waste of a post then. However I'd still try and hire one for a few days
Click to expand...

No worries, there is a grip for most cameras, just not the very bottom Nikons :)
 
Well today's family trip to a local farm park was the ideal test to see how I got on with the 18-200. I arrived there with every intention to sell it and get a 70-200 2.8, but after just 5 minutes I remembered sole reason that I'd bought the 18-200 in the first place; Flexibility.

Now it probably doesn't compare on optics to the 70-200, but I was going from 18 upto 200 and back again all the time. My little girl moves pretty fast and if I'd have been limited to 70 at the wide end I'd have missed half the shots today.

I'm not saying that a 70-200 2.8 won't end up in my bag at some point, it may well do, in fact i'm sure it will. But on the basis of today, it cannot be at the expense of my 18-200. I've already had the 2 lens hassle when I owned an 18-70 and 55-200. Nice lenses, but I was sick of missing things with the wrong lens on. For me, the 18-200 is the ultimate walkabout/don't miss anything lens. (but at the expense of a bit of quality)

The weather was poor today and light at a premium (it was dull and misty), so I had to crank the ISO to 800 and was stuck with "non 2.8" aperture's because of the lens, but I don't think these came out too bad all things considered.


DSC_1050.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr


DSC_1068.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Well in the end, I caved in.

I didn't replace the 18-200 because of all the reason's above, so treated myself to a Sigma 70-200mm ƒ2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II.

As you can see, it does look a whopper on my diminutive D3100. :)


IMG_1935.jpg by Zarch1972, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top