Sigma 70-200

Jiffy

Jiffy

Messages
303
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I am after the Sigma 70-200 2.8, I have read many reviews which have all been positive. But I need to know if they're good or not from people who actually own one. Also is the macro version not as good as the non macro version?
 
Jiffy said:
I am after the Sigma 70-200 2.8, I have read many reviews which have all been positive. But I need to know if they're good or not from people who actually own one. Also is the macro version not as good as the non macro version?
Click to expand...


If people dont think that they're any good then they wouldn't be owning one so those who do must like it - surely :shrug:

I've read in the past that the MKI is the bee's knee's & thats the one to own as it was pin sharp & ooodles better than the macro version.. But if I remember the MKI version is quite rare- then again I'm going on my fish memory & not my elephant memory :lol:

Not knowing your budget why not consider the Nikon 70-200VR - not that I'm putting down Sigma, as I've owned Sigma lens's in the past (Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro & Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG IF) two awesome lens's I found....
 
I own a MK1, which coupled with my 40D gives excellent results. A little soft at 200mm, but then most lenses are at their extremes. As your camera is also 10 megapixels I think you will be happy with the results.
 
Well some people may have purchased it and not found it to be as good as they hought I guess. The Nikon would be ideal but if the optics are fairly close then im not forking hundreds of pounds more just for the name on the lens. Lol. That and I couldnt afford it. Haha.
Thanks for the advice guys.

Graham
 
I have the newer MkII macro and its a lovely lens, certainly I havn't experienced any softness issues, mine is pin-sharp across the range all the way to 200mm.

Of course i'm using it on a crop so cant comment on FF corner sharpness.
 
Trig's said:
If people dont think that they're any good then they wouldn't be owning one so those who do must like it - surely :shrug:

I've read in the past that the MKI is the bee's knee's & thats the one to own as it was pin sharp & ooodles better than the macro version.. But if I remember the MKI version is quite rare- then again I'm going on my fish memory & not my elephant memory :lol:

Not knowing your budget why not consider the Nikon 70-200VR - not that I'm putting down Sigma, as I've owned Sigma lens's in the past (Sigma 150mm 2.8 macro & Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG IF) two awesome lens's I found....
Click to expand...

The mkI isn't supposed to be as sharp as the mkII which is supposed to be better in all respects. Not used the mkI though.
 
Jiffy said:
Well some people may have purchased it and not found it to be as good as they hought I guess. The Nikon would be ideal but if the optics are fairly close then im not forking hundreds of pounds more just for the name on the lens. Lol. That and I couldnt afford it. Haha.
Thanks for the advice guys.

Graham
Click to expand...

I've owned a used macro for a few years and I have no issues with it. It was a third of the price of the Nikon used.

Hers an example at 2.8 200mm
 
I have the MKII and its a superb lens, easily matched up to the 1.4 converter with no loss of detail.

The 2x converter is a bit too much and needs you to step it down a lot to maintain the sharpness
 
foggy4ever said:
I've owned a used macro for a few years and I have no issues with it. It was a third of the price of the Nikon used.

Hers an example at 2.8 200mm
Click to expand...

Thats a real nice picture, much sharper than I had imagined. Have you ever coupled it with your S5 pro? I only ask as I own one. Cheers
 
Jiffy said:
Thats a real nice picture, much sharper than I had imagined. Have you ever coupled it with your S5 pro? I only ask as I own one. Cheers
Click to expand...

Thanks

A few times, most of the shots here are with the Fuji and Sigma.
 
I have the mk2, its not an easy lens to use as it has no vr and very shallow depth of field. When I get it right its very sharp, nothing wrong with the lens its just me not used to using it. I do wonder whether much of the criticism of the lens is people not fully understanding what it takes to get the best out of it?
 
odd jim said:
The mkI isn't supposed to be as sharp as the mkII which is supposed to be better in all respects. Not used the mkI though.
Click to expand...

I'm only going on memory (like I mentioned in my op) & what I've read (couple of years ago) that the MKI (non macro) was the best of the 2 (2nd being the MKII macro version) only as I was going to get one but then decided on getting the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX DG IF APO as it deemed better for wildlife...
 
Dave Pickett said:
I have the mk2, its not an easy lens to use as it has no vr and very shallow depth of field. When I get it right its very sharp, nothing wrong with the lens its just me not used to using it. I do wonder whether much of the criticism of the lens is people not fully understanding what it takes to get the best out of it?
Click to expand...

Thats a very good point, after all its about nailing the exposure as anything else. Some people very may well struggle with it because of a lack of understanding. Well I sure hope so as I am planning on getting one in the very near future. Thanks for your help :)

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