+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13
dqw
  1. #1
    cold-blooded internet insult machine Markitos's Avatar
    Member#
    74
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Default  Sigma 70-200 f2.8  
      
      

    I am looking at this lens down the road as a cheaper alternative to the Nikon 70-200 VR... I know at least one person on NSOP has one... thoughts? I would like to know specifically about AF speed/accuracy, size, and build. Optical quality is important, but I hardly ever use this range, so it's not as critical.

    Keep in mind that I hardly ever use the tele range, but when I do, I am finding I would like to have a wider constant aperture (the 70-300 that I have now is 4.5-5.6).

    I am also looking at the 18-200 AF-D that someone has for sale here on NSOP--that would be my Nikon alternative if I don't go with the Sigma since they are roughly equivalent in price.

    M
    “Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept.” -- Henri Cartier-Bresson


    • Advertising

      advertising
      newschoolofphotography.com
      has no influence on the ads
      that Google displays.



        
       

  2. #2
    Hat Trick
    Member#
    53
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Some national park...

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    I loved mine. Nice and sharp, good contrast, very good price.

    I only sold it because I didn't need the extra stop and went with the lighter/cheaper Canon 70-200 f/4 L.

    I assume you've seen this thread?
    http://www.newschoolofphotography.co...hp?topic=755.0

    - Scott

  3. #3
    cold-blooded internet insult machine Markitos's Avatar
    Member#
    74
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Oh yeah! Thanks, Scott. I had forgotten about that thread, but I KNEW there was SOMETHING on here about the Sigma.

    M
    “Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept.” -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

  4. #4
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    I also have and love this lens for what it is. Optically it's awesome, AF is perfect (fast & accurate), and it has an awesome price. The build isn't as nice as canon's (don't know about anything else) but it's still built well. Just expect some paint chipping if you own it a while.

    My only issues with it is the premise of the lens. Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8, or would the 200mm f2.8 be a better choice? I use it at 200mm most of the time. The 200mm prime is smaller, lighter and less expensive.

    But if you're in the market for a 70-200mm f? put this on the short list for sure.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  5. #5
    Working Rallyroo's Avatar
    Member#
    17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobsen1
    My only issues with it is the premise of the lens. Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8, or would the 200mm f2.8 be a better choice? I use it at 200mm most of the time. The 200mm prime is smaller, lighter and less expensive.
    Does Canon make a 200/2.0? You could get that instead of the f/2.8 version!

  6. #6
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Yeah, they do but it's not out yet, they're rumored to be $3k~$5k and they're very big/heavy.... But I still want one. They also made a f1.8 a while back.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  7. #7
    Working Rallyroo's Avatar
    Member#
    17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Nikon currently has the 200/2.0 AF-S VR retailing for $4k and weighs in a ~3 kg (6.4 lbs). I'll pass though.

    Looks kinda cool though with the stubby look combined with the huge front element.

  8. #8
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    agreed. I love the looks of those and the 85mm f1.2. Huge element in relation to the length...
    And Canon's is rumored to be le$$ than the nikon because canons always cost less.
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  9. #9
    *spirit fingers* subimatt's Avatar
    Member#
    70
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Albany, NY

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    the Canon 1.8s are expensive if you find one, there was a short spurt for sale on FM and potn when the new f2 was announced.

  10. #10
    Hat Trick
    Member#
    53
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Some national park...

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    The Canon 200 1.8s are the ones with the massive front element right? I think I saw one a while back at a wrestling match. In fact, doesn't Mike (mkfotos) have one or had one?

    - Scott

  11. #11
    cheesehead jacobsen1's Avatar
    Member#
    1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    41º64', 071º24'

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Yes he does, and yes they look very.... interesting.
    http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...00mmf18SHW.jpg
    I own this joint!
    gear list.
    yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery, today is a gift, that's why it's called the present.

  12. #12
    Hat Trick
    Member#
    53
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Some national park...

    Default  Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8        

    Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of... I think they look pretty damn cool, I bet that can get to be a real pain once the initial cool factor wears off though...

  13. #13
    Pro LateApex's Avatar
    Member#
    7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    So. Cal. desert

    Default          

    I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and I love it. I rented the Nikon 70-200 VR before I bought this, and it's quite a bit bigger/heavier than the Sigma. I have no complaints with the Sigma, but if you've got the cash, VR is nice.

    For half the price of the Nikon, I think it's an awesome deal.

+ Reply to Thread Go Back to forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts