Slightly disapointed, should I be?

This one is F2.8 at 200mm.

I sold mine yesterday as I now have a Nikon version. The VR is nice on the Nikon but in pure sharpness terms there is little between them.


GAD_3482 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
Sharpness looks fine to me, had a few of these in various mounts, good lens for the price. Could be the compression but the 80-200 pics look over sharpened, loads of artifacts around focus points.
 
Last edited:
This is a shot of my cat taken last night with flash, much much happier with this one! I think I will just need to look at my technique for hand holding a long heavy lens! Thanks for your input guys.


monty (1 of 1) by daharro, on Flickr
 
daharro said:
This is a shot of my cat taken last night with flash, much much happier with this one! I think I will just need to look at my technique for hand holding a long heavy lens! Thanks for your input guys.


monty (1 of 1) by daharro, on Flickr
Click to expand...

You can't argue with that performance wide open for a reasonable priced lens. I was planning on getting a Nikon 70-300mm maybe i will spend an extra £100 and get one of these. Still not overly keep on the bokeh though.
 
rjbell said:
You can't argue with that performance wide open for a reasonable priced lens. I was planning on getting a Nikon 70-300mm maybe i will spend an extra £100 and get one of these. Still not overly keep on the bokeh though.
Click to expand...

They've all got me thinking now too! I don't think I could live with that focal length and no OS though so would want that version.

These pictures are quite incredible though!
 
Phil Young said:
They've all got me thinking now too! I don't think I could live with that focal length and no OS though so would want that version.

These pictures are quite incredible though!
Click to expand...
Nice to have the OS but its fast and the d5100/d7000 do well at high iso's, this might be enough for me.
 
On FX you only need a shutter of 1/200 to rule out shake, so OS isn't that important to me. I certainly haven't had an occasion yet where I thought, "damn I wish this had OS!" Saying that, if I could afford it, I'd probably buy the OS version in a heartbeat.
 
I've use to have a siggy but when the opportunity came to get a good deal on a Nikon vr1 I got that one as well.

In my experience the siggy is good, the Nikon is great. The Nikon is just so forgiving if you make a mistake, and not just in sharpness but also focus and contrast/colours.

I wished I didn't take that side step first, but hey if I didn't I wouldn't have known the difference. :)
 
daharro said:
The 80-200 didn't meter right, I think these were quite over exposed so that might have had an effect.
Click to expand...

Thanks for stating that in the advert for it pal when you sold it to me. Yeah it was a bargain but don't sell something without pointing out that it doesn't meter properly!

In saying that I have tested then lens extensively and it must be your camera as it appears to meter perfectly on my D700
 
for exactly that reason! I'd tested it on a few bodies, my d300s was fine, and two friends d700 and d7000 were fine. I came to the same conclusion you have that it must have been my body. sorry if you feel seen off by it. Had you found a problem I would have had it back with full refund, but you obviously haven't.
 
daharro said:
for exactly that reason! I'd tested it on a few bodies, my d300s was fine, and two friends d700 and d7000 were fine. I came to the same conclusion you have that it must have been my body. sorry if you feel seen off by it. Had you found a problem I would have had it back with full refund, but you obviously haven't.
Click to expand...

its all good. I just bought myself a Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS there.

Was looking the Nikon but if I get a good copy I'll be happy enough
 
How's your daughter getting on with it? Any good shots yet? Wish I could afford a new OS version, or even a vrII!
 
daharro said:
How's your daughter getting on with it? Any good shots yet? Wish I could afford a new OS version, or even a vrII!
Click to expand...

For the money I'd just get a second hand 70-200 VR1 personally..
 
TonyNI said:
mate the 70-200 vr1 is like 400 quid more expensive than what I paid for a brand new sigma! why on earth would I pay that????
Click to expand...

£825 is the cheapest I've found for the OS siggy...I wouldn't pay £1225 for a second hand VR1 that would be daft...Plenty around for around £900...
 
dejongj said:
£825 is the cheapest I've found for the OS siggy...I wouldn't pay £1225 for a second hand VR1 that would be daft...Plenty around for around £900...
Click to expand...

£725 from panamoz
 
Very good price, me personally I'd still rather pay £175 more for a second hand Nikon VR1, and easily recovered when selling on again...Colours, contrast, focus, point shoot keeper...But hey if your happy then fine :)
 
My Sigma 70-200 EXII is pin sharp across the range. It's a heavy beast though and can induce shake evident at lower shutter speeds. Your shots do look a little soft but it's hard to pinpoint why. I don't think it's a front / back focus issues as they look soft all over. Try using a mono pod and see how you get on.
 
Phil Young said:
You bought one of the earlier models that doesn't start to get sharp until above f4. That's the problem.

It doesn't matter what shutter you use or ISO etc, it will always be soft wide open.

You should have got the latest OS model.
Click to expand...

Nope, the mk1 was a sharp lens, even wide open. It's not just the OS version that's good, lol!
 
Phil Young said:
You won't have to look far on the internet to see the lens is soft wide open.
Click to expand...

But this guy owns the lens and he's telling you it isn't.
 
Phil Young said:
Perhaps version 2 I'm not sure now but I do remember reading how one version at least was soft used wide open. I'll have a look when I get home tonight...I could be making up this story but am sure I read a review on one supporting it...
Click to expand...

Nope, the mk2 is even better!
 
Last edited:
I do not understand these posters who supply a host of shots but fail to enter any details. Looking overall, these shots they all suffer from a very shallow DOF. Most have a sharp spot somewhere, for instance the signpost lettering looks good.Hairs on some parts of the horses like whiskers look good. The rabbits have a DOF of about 3 feet. If you read the Exif I think you would find they are all shot fully open.Photozine reckon them all to be a good lens, should be for the price of them.
 
eagercat said:
I do not understand these posters who supply a host of shots but fail to enter any details. Looking overall, these shots they all suffer from a very shallow DOF. Most have a sharp spot somewhere, for instance the signpost lettering looks good.Hairs on some parts of the horses like whiskers look good. The rabbits have a DOF of about 3 feet. If you read the Exif I think you would find they are all shot fully open.Photozine reckon them all to be a good lens, should be for the price of them.
Click to expand...

If you read a few posts down, the op tells what settings were used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top