Question about Sigma

GadgetRick

Ok, as some of you know, I've been looking to get myself a 70-200 f2.8 for sports shooting. I want a Canon L but, as we all know, they're quite expensive. Money is tight and I've been also considering the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM. I know it's not a Canon but the reviews I'm reading seem favorable and the price is, well, it's right.

I was originally thinking of picking up a used 70-200 non-IS but have had trouble finding a good one. Besides, I'm still looking at $950 (on the low end) to about $1200. I figured I'd pick that up since I don't really need the IS for the things I plan to shoot with it. As I earn more money, I can save for the IS version (hopefully the Mk II version).

I can find the Sigma for about $800 for a new lens. So I'm curious as to whether anyone around here has used this lens and can comment on the IQ as well as the focus speed/accuracy and how well it focuses in low light.

This would (again) be a temporary lens until I can afford what I really want. But I'm thinking it may be good enough to bridge the gap to when I can make that move.

Also, I'm open to any other suggestions. Thanks.

Cayuse

I've been happy with mine. Focuses well even in lower light. Of course I would rather have the Nikon version but the $$$ won't be there for awhile so this is my alternative until the funding situation improves.

chefdave

GadgetRick wrote: »

Ok, as some of you know, I've been looking to get myself a 70-200 f2.8 for sports shooting. I want a Canon L but, as we all know, they're quite expensive. Money is tight and I've been also considering the Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM. I know it's not a Canon but the reviews I'm reading seem favorable and the price is, well, it's right.

I was originally thinking of picking up a used 70-200 non-IS but have had trouble finding a good one. Besides, I'm still looking at $950 (on the low end) to about $1200. I figured I'd pick that up since I don't really need the IS for the things I plan to shoot with it. As I earn more money, I can save for the IS version (hopefully the Mk II version).

I can find the Sigma for about $800 for a new lens. So I'm curious as to whether anyone around here has used this lens and can comment on the IQ as well as the focus speed/accuracy and how well it focuses in low light.

This would (again) be a temporary lens until I can afford what I really want. But I'm thinking it may be good enough to bridge the gap to when I can make that move.

Also, I'm open to any other suggestions. Thanks.

The canon non IS is $1300 at B&H. I have the Sigma 70/200 and am going to be selling and picking up the non is L.

GadgetRick

chefdave wrote: »

The canon non IS is $1300 at B&H. I have the Sigma 70/200 and am going to be selling and picking up the non is L.

I know I can find decent deals on a new L non-IS. Just don't have the extra money at the moment. Just want to know if I can do pro work with the Sigma (non-OS) since I can find it so inexpensively. I also have a coupon which can get me closer to $700 on a new one.

I sell a lot of photos and want to ensure whatever I get will allow me to keep the quality where I want it to be (lens-wise) until I can afford to get what I really want/need.

GadgetRick

Well, I may have found a good Canon non-IS for less than $1,000. If that works out, I'll buy that and not worry about the Sigma. For a couple of hundred bucks more I'd rather have the Canon.

Still kinda curious about the Sigma anyway as other people I know have asked about them.

Matthew Saville

GadgetRick wrote: »

Well, I may have found a good Canon non-IS for less than $1,000. If that works out, I'll buy that and not worry about the Sigma. For a couple of hundred bucks more I'd rather have the Canon.

Still kinda curious about the Sigma anyway as other people I know have asked about them.

Honestly both of the older generation Canon 2.8's are nothing to write home about. The Canon 70-200 f/4 L's are WAY sharper wide open than either of the 2.8's stopped down. If you're looking to save money, THAT is the lens I'd buy. Depending on your line of work, f/4 and stabilization (and insane sharpness, and rugged build quality with sealing) ...might be FAR more preferable than f/2.8 without stabilization. Don't know what you shoot though. I know that for some things shutter speed is extremely paramount, but often I find that most people are just blindly obsessed with f/2.8 because they think it is the mark of a professional. In which case again, I point out that the older generation Canon 2.8 L's are laughably soft compared to the 70-200 f/4 L's...


Having said all that, the Sigma 70-200 is a decent lens. It was a bit too soft for me wide open and close-up, but at greater distances and throughout MOST of the range, it's a great lens. I once owned three Sigma lenses that could hit 150mm f/2.8, and I tested them in this grid here:


http://photos.matthewsaville.com/For-photographers/Reviews-Samples/sigma-50-150-f28-ex-dc-hsm/150mm-lens-shootout-100-CLOSE/119351767_fgb4t-O.jpg

This test was done at the closest focusing mark of the 50-150 and 70-200, which is pushing the limits of those lenses while the Sigma 150 2.8 Macro is barely getting started at 3-4 feet. ;-)

As you can see, neither zoom can come close to the prime wide open, but by f/5.6 they're pretty much identical.

I'm sorry I don't have any other tests, I should have done a similar test at near-infinity but that wasn't my main concern at the time I bought each lens.

Personally, I kept the Sigma 150 Macro and the 50-150 DC for my D300, and have been happy for 3-4 years now...


=Matt=

GadgetRick

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Honestly both of the older generation Canon 2.8's are nothing to write home about. The Canon 70-200 f/4 L's are WAY sharper wide open than either of the 2.8's stopped down. If you're looking to save money, THAT is the lens I'd buy. Depending on your line of work, f/4 and stabilization (and insane sharpness, and rugged build quality with sealing) ...might be FAR more preferable than f/2.8 without stabilization. Don't know what you shoot though. I know that for some things shutter speed is extremely paramount, but often I find that most people are just blindly obsessed with f/2.8 because they think it is the mark of a professional. In which case again, I point out that the older generation Canon 2.8 L's are laughably soft compared to the 70-200 f/4 L's...

Thanks.

The f4 won't cut it for me as I do (mostly) sports photography, specifically, MMA photography and I need the speed. Otherwise, I'd have been all over an f4.

GadgetRick

richy wrote: »

I've had that lens, optically its pretty good, nearly perfectly sharp at 2.8, its pretty much the eual of canon optically and focussing as near as I can tell. The downside, build quality. It genuinely is made in a jungle clearing out of banana skins and monkey poop. The amount of times I have had to take the thing apart to empty sand out is daft, the theres no serious seals on the focussing grips so stuff gets in there and you have to peel em back and take all that apart. Having said that it lasted a good few years of being well used so maybe I am being a little harsh on it. Oh it did have some CA but nothing drastic.
I would second the comments about f4 IS. Sharp as hell and IS to boot, plus weather sealing I think. I use the 17-40 and 24-105 is al the time and they deliver amazing results, and when they fall in the sea theyre cheaper to replace. Sure they arent f2.8 but thats why I have the 300. Its not a huge monumental difference that will suddenly catapult you into J* territory

Thanks. That bothers me a bit as I'm shooting in close quarters at some fights (although no dirt to speak of but occasionally blood...).

Mark1616

I used to have (well actually still do, just haven't ever sorted out selling it) the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8HSM and used it with all of my bodies up to the 1DmkIII. I actually had a couple of copies as for some reason mine started to have focus issues so Sigma replaced it under warranty. The Sigma has never been all that sharp at over 180mm and didn't take a TC very well. The Canon (I've had the 2.8 IS version since 2009 as I also shoot low light non sports) focuses better/faster/more accurately, it is a better lens optically throughout the range and it just gives me extra confidence to shoot. The non IS version of the Canon f2.8 is actually a little sharper than the IS which is good news for you. If you had to go Sigma I would say it is about 85% the quality of the Canon, but it is the long end that suffers which is often where we all want to be shooting in sports.

Oh, I don't think they will, but just in case someone chips in about the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, yes it is optically good but really not great for AF speed so not the lens for shooting sports.

GadgetRick

Mark1616 wrote: »

I used to have (well actually still do, just haven't ever sorted out selling it) the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8HSM and used it with all of my bodies up to the 1DmkIII. I actually had a couple of copies as for some reason mine started to have focus issues so Sigma replaced it under warranty. The Sigma has never been all that sharp at over 180mm and didn't take a TC very well. The Canon (I've had the 2.8 IS version since 2009 as I also shoot low light non sports) focuses better/faster/more accurately, it is a better lens optically throughout the range and it just gives me extra confidence to shoot. The non IS version of the Canon f2.8 is actually a little sharper than the IS which is good news for you. If you had to go Sigma I would say it is about 85% the quality of the Canon, but it is the long end that suffers which is often where we all want to be shooting in sports.

Oh, I don't think they will, but just in case someone chips in about the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, yes it is optically good but really not great for AF speed so not the lens for shooting sports.

Thanks. Exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

I looked at the Tamron but read the same thing about slow AF. Just can't have that for sports.

Looks like I did work out a deal on a good used Canon non-L. Found it at the last moment. I feel better about it even though it's costing me a little bit more.

Mark1616

GadgetRick wrote: »

Thanks. Exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

I looked at the Tamron but read the same thing about slow AF. Just can't have that for sports.

Looks like I did work out a deal on a good used Canon non-L. Found it at the last moment. I feel better about it even though it's costing me a little bit more.

You're welcome.

Think you meant non IS rather than non L

GadgetRick

Mark1616 wrote: »

You're welcome.

Think you meant non IS rather than non L

Whoops! Yup, non-IS. Sorry, was busy getting ready for a bbq today.

InsuredDisaster

GadgetRick wrote: »

Just want to know if I can do pro work with the Sigma (non-OS) since I can find it so inexpensively.

I bet you could.

What do you have now that you are using to fill in the 70-200 range? I don't have any experience with the Sigma 70-200 but I bet it should be just as good (i'm guessing you are not already using a top of the line Canon 70-200 IS can-cut-diamonds-L series lens but something a bit more kit-like)

Buy from someplace that you can do a no hassel return, order the lens up, and maybe shoot some static scenes if you really want to pixel peep, or just go out and shoot the real world and see what happens. If you hate it, return it.

My only concern with Sigma is that I've had some bad experiences with 2 of the 3 lenses I've had from them. The Sigma 30/f1.4 suffered from terrible focusing issues on my D70 and D300 (I shoot with Nikon) and the 18-200 zoom was really stiff and got worse and worse. But the 10-20 has been great so I'd just make sure I could test it first.

That being said, some people here do shoot with Sigma and seem to be quite happy putting glowing recommendations in huge fonts in their signatures, so hey, they can't be too bad can they?

Matthew Saville

GadgetRick wrote: »

Thanks.

The f4 won't cut it for me as I do (mostly) sports photography, specifically, MMA photography and I need the speed. Otherwise, I'd have been all over an f4.

Yep for action like that, stabilization will be almost useless and f/2.8 will be invaluable.

Glad to hear you've got a good deal on the Canon, because for your use you're going to appreciate the speed of focusing and rugged construction. Just use a monopod to make up for the lack of IS, and you're good to go!

=Matt=

cmason

Here are detailed tests against the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/70200exl

Mark1616

GadgetRick wrote: »

Whoops! Yup, non-IS. Sorry, was busy getting ready for a bbq today.

Mmmmmmmmm BBQ, nice.

GadgetRick

InsuredDisaster wrote: »

I bet you could.

What do you have now that you are using to fill in the 70-200 range? I don't have any experience with the Sigma 70-200 but I bet it should be just as good (i'm guessing you are not already using a top of the line Canon 70-200 IS can-cut-diamonds-L series lens but something a bit more kit-like)

Buy from someplace that you can do a no hassel return, order the lens up, and maybe shoot some static scenes if you really want to pixel peep, or just go out and shoot the real world and see what happens. If you hate it, return it.

My only concern with Sigma is that I've had some bad experiences with 2 of the 3 lenses I've had from them. The Sigma 30/f1.4 suffered from terrible focusing issues on my D70 and D300 (I shoot with Nikon) and the 18-200 zoom was really stiff and got worse and worse. But the 10-20 has been great so I'd just make sure I could test it first.

That being said, some people here do shoot with Sigma and seem to be quite happy putting glowing recommendations in huge fonts in their signatures, so hey, they can't be too bad can they?

Actually, been using a 28-70 f2.8 L for my MMA shoots so no kit lens for me...

I haven't had anything for that range as I've not really been called upon to shoot it--and haven't looked to--but will be soon. Hence the reason for looking for something.

GadgetRick

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Yep for action like that, stabilization will be almost useless and f/2.8 will be invaluable.

Glad to hear you've got a good deal on the Canon, because for your use you're going to appreciate the speed of focusing and rugged construction. Just use a monopod to make up for the lack of IS, and you're good to go!

=Matt=

Yeah, kinda figured that. Part of me was saying, "Save the money!" While the other part was saying, "Spend the money!"

GadgetRick

Mark1616 wrote: »

Mmmmmmmmm BBQ, nice.

I grill all of the time.

Skirt steak and ribs last night. Yummy!