Which 70-200/2.8

BazEP

BazEP

Messages
590
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I've done some searching but can't find anything that answers this. I'm trying to make sense of all the versions of the siggy 70-200 to understand which options are worth trying to get (I know the OS is the latest and greatest buy think it'll be a bit out of budget). Are they all Macro? Are all of those worth getting HSM? This is for use on a d300 so a motored lens is not vital.

Anyone able to help or point me in the right direction?
 
I thought all the Sigma EX 70-200 2.8s were HSM?

anyways I have the old Sigma EX DG APO 2.8 HSM

this one

6265832537_180de733f7_z.jpg


paid £389 from MPB and IMO an absolute bargain, its a weight though, and big but I love it, it focus's fast and is nice and sharp, when I was a Canon man I had the also had the bargain f4 'L' but I would say the Sigma beats that for both speed and IQ..

D7000 + Siggy, f4 ISO 800 1/160, nothing done PP except resize

DSC_0019-2.jpg


I am sure you will find some better example photos on Flickr.... if youre on a budget I would put it NO1 option.
 
Last edited:
I managed to get hold of the Siggy 70-200 EX DG Macro HSM II from a fellow TPer, and I must admit, it's a good lens. Sharpest between f/5.6 and f/11. OS would be nice to have on it but I can't really grumble too much, especially not with the high ISO capabilities of the D7000...

You can find the version history here...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/
 
All are HSM.

Only the mk2 introduced in 2008 is designated 'macro' but it's not a true macro lens, it only means it has a better minimum focus distance than normal.

I have the mk 2 and I love it. Fast, lovely and sharp even wide open and easily as good as the canon 70-200 f/2.8 mk1.
 
odd jim said:
All are HSM.

Only the mk2 introduced in 2008 is designated 'macro' but it's not a true macro lens, it only means it has a better minimum focus distance than normal.

I have the mk 2 and I love it. Fast, lovely and sharp even wide open and easily as good as the canon 70-200 f/2.8 mk1.
Click to expand...

Is the macro a mk2? My understanding of the models is:

EX (NON DG)
EX DG
EX DG MACRO
EX DG MACRO II
EX DG OS

I think thats all of them? But yeah they're all hsm
 
Yeah I thought it was only the mk2 that was designated macro but I could be wrong?
 
neil_g said:
Is the macro a mk2? My understanding of the models is:

EX (NON DG)
EX DG
EX DG MACRO
EX DG MACRO II
EX DG OS

I think thats all of them? But yeah they're all hsm
Click to expand...

Actually you're right, I checked dp review as I knew I'd seen it on there;

70-200mm F2.8 EX APO - Original version, minimum focus distance 1.8m (1999)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG - Adds 'digitally optimized' lens coatings to reduce flare (2005)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (HSM) - Minimum focus distance reduced to 1m (2006)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II - Improved optical performance (2007)

...and if course now there is the OS version as well.
 
I ordered the HSM II yesterday, can't wait to get hold of it.

I was torn between that and the tamron version. The tammy is apparently optically superior, but much slower focusing, and noisey.

I went for the sigma in the end because I found it pretty cheap on amazon uk. The HSM and quicker focusing being the other deciding factors.

The faux 'macro' may be just a gimmick, but for anyone, like me, who takes a lot of portraits, it allows you get in nice and close for a long lens. The older versions would have you standing way back. Other than that, I think the newest version has an extra ELD element.
 
scottthehat said:
the original non macros are ment to be the sharpest(not including the os version).
Click to expand...

Not heard that. The mk2 has far better optics so I'd be surprised if the mk1 non macro was better?
 
scottthehat said:
alot of people that sold theres to buy the newer versions sold them to buy the older version again. i have had the older one and a macro version and the older one was defo sharper, and the dg coating makes little difference.
Click to expand...

It's not just the coating, the macro mk2 has (some) different optical elements to the mk1 that's the main difference.

I think it's strange that someone would sell a mk1 to buy a mk2 with any lens though (potentially making a loss on the lens to effectively buy the same lens again) hense why I too don't buy into that urban myth!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's not just the coating, the macro mk2 has (some) different optical elements to the mk1 that's the main difference.

I think it's strange that someone would sell a mk1 to buy a mk2 with any lens though (potentially making a loss on the lens to effectively buy the same lens again) hense why I too don't buy into that urban myth!
Click to expand...

Jim, are you talking about the Siggy in particular? The only reason I ask is that just above you say the mk2 has far better optics... wouldn't that be reason enough to upgrade?

Looking at the lens history on dpreview, the lens I have must be about the 4th incarnation of their 70-200, with the first being released in 1999. The next one in line for me would be the OS version...
 
odd jim said:
It's not just the coating, the macro mk2 has (some) different optical elements to the mk1 that's the main difference.

I think it's strange that someone would sell a mk1 to buy a mk2 with any lens though (potentially making a loss on the lens to effectively buy the same lens again) hense why I too don't buy into that urban myth!
Click to expand...

yeah i think the macro onwards has more elements?
 
Catdaddy said:
Jim, are you talking about the Siggy in particular? The only reason I ask is that just above you say the mk2 has far better optics... wouldn't that be reason enough to upgrade?

Looking at the lens history on dpreview, the lens I have must be about the 4th incarnation of their 70-200, with the first being released in 1999. The next one in line for me would be the OS version...
Click to expand...

Well, maybe "far better" is an exaggeration in real life terms but on paper that's how Sigma would describe the newer optics.
 
When I was looking for a Sigma 70-200mm I tested a new HSM macro version and an older MKI non macro and settled on the MKI which was certainly sharper than the newer lens. When I was thinking about buying a Canon 50D I purposely went looking for the same lens in Canon mount and have to say it's just as good as the one I have for my Pentax. (only cost me £50 as well) :D
 
Riiight - so there's no definitive answer it seems. Wish i had the pennies for the OS as it looks like a stonker but think I'll have to see how things go. I expect the cost will be relative to the age then if they're all much of a muchness? And obviously need to make sure I get a sharp copy...
 
BazEP said:
Riiight - so there's no definitive answer it seems. Wish i had the pennies for the OS as it looks like a stonker but think I'll have to see how things go. I expect the cost will be relative to the age then if they're all much of a muchness? And obviously need to make sure I get a sharp copy...
Click to expand...

I have a sigma 70-200 f2.8ii APO EX DG MACRO (hopefully pronounced right :lol:) a sharp copy for sale. Its the only version of any 70-200 I've owned no problems with it :)
 
yeah, I saw that teheer. bad timing for me - need to wait until next decent pay day probably at the end of Nov (and selling my Nik 70-300).
 
"go with what you can get, but make sure it's sharp" seems to be the outcome.
 
rather than start a new thread hope the OP does not mind if I ask, does anyone use one for sport? indoor and outdoor, it would be good to here what they are like from some one who uses one?
cheers
Ian
 
Red9R said:
rather than start a new thread hope the OP does not mind if I ask, does anyone use one for sport? indoor and outdoor, it would be good to here what they are like from some one who uses one?
cheers
Ian
Click to expand...

Yep, indoor and out equestrian and motorsport (sometimes with an x2 TC) and it performs perfectly.
 
Thanks Jim,
I am struggling to justify the cost of the Nikon kit being as I am very much an amature, I pick a camera up for a few months then dont touch it for a few, so could save myself a bit :)
Cheers
Ian
 
For me, the Sigma performed as well and is as sharp as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (mk1). As far as I was concerned the Canon wasnt worth twice the price and these days there's no way its worth paying the extra when you can get a lens as good for far less.

I cant comment on the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 but I doubt its twice as good as the Sigma!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top