Found: Sigma 70-200mm 2.8

PBS_Kids

As the title says, I'm looking to buy a good copy of this lens at a decent price.

I'm new here, but have feedback at POTN under the S/N LucyRoberts.

Beau Arnold

I have one a non dg but it's not going to be cheap. It is dead on sharp at 70 and 200 wide open. I had not even thought about selling it but I just picked up a 120-300 so the shorty has been in the Domke bag. PM me for more details.

kbbruner

PBS_Kids wrote:

As the title says, I'm looking to buy a good copy of this lens at a decent price.

I'm new here, but have feedback at POTN under the S/N LucyRoberts.

I have one for sale.

Sigma 70-200MM F/2.8 EX DG Macro APO HSM - $700

This is a great lens that we used for the entire first season of wedding photography and my husband used it in our second season when I upgraded to the Canon 70-200mm IS. Great lens, nice and sharp! Comes with lens hood and the original box!

PBS_Kids

OK, I'm getting confused. Are there 2 different versions of this lens? I've been seeing this lens going for %50 to $625, now this is the second $700 tag I've been offered.

I'm not questioning you, I'm just questioning my own knowledge.

Shima

PBS_Kids wrote:

OK, I'm getting confused. Are there 2 different versions of this lens? I've been seeing this lens going for %50 to $625, now this is the second $700 tag I've been offered.

I'm not questioning you, I'm just questioning my own knowledge.

There is a non-macro version, though I'm fairly certain they don't make that one anymore. I own the non-macro version of this lens, but can't sell it to you since the only reason I'd sell it is if I was buying the canon with is version... and will need lots more money before that's a possibility! good luck getting your hands on one, they're great lenses

PBS_Kids

Thanks for clearing that up for me! Then I guess I am looking for the
cheaper version!

NateWagner

I'm pretty sure there are actually 3 different versions. 1 is the DG macro, one is DG (without the macro) and one is no dg no macro. That last one will be the cheapest and should be around 500 (at least that's what I've been seeing it go for on ebay). the one with the DG no macro is more towards the 600 range, and the DG Macro is closer to the 700 range.

PBS_Kids

NateWagner wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are actually 3 different versions. 1 is the DG macro, one is DG (without the macro) and one is no dg no macro. That last one will be the cheapest and should be around 500 (at least that's what I've been seeing it go for on ebay). the one with the DG no macro is more towards the 600 range, and the DG Macro is closer to the 700 range.

! OK, I suppose I am looking for the mid-range then.

Art Scott

NateWagner wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are actually 3 different versions. 1 is the DG macro, one is DG (without the macro) and one is no dg no macro. That last one will be the cheapest and should be around 500 (at least that's what I've been seeing it go for on ebay). the one with the DG no macro is more towards the 600 range, and the DG Macro is closer to the 700 range.

The NON DG version is usually noted as the 70-200 (sometimes 210) APO F2.8.....The oldest version being the 70-210 will still bring around $500 if in good condition....mine a Minolta mount gets serviced regularly to make sure there is no dirt inside to gall the focusing componets and to make sure it stays properly lubricated since I do use it in very adverse weather conditions {Ks wind, rain and windy rain and windy snow}....it is also a non macro lens but still very sharp at both ends of its spectrum.........

Michel Souris

There are actually 4 versions of the lens now . . . the pre-DG, the DG, and 2 newer macro versions. The newest macro was probably introduced because of complaints that the first macro version was not as sharp as the earlier versions, non DG and DG.

Art Scott wrote:

The NON DG version is usually noted as the 70-200 (sometimes 210) APO F2.8.....The oldest version being the 70-210 will still bring around $500 if in good condition....mine a Minolta mount gets serviced regularly to make sure there is no dirt inside to gall the focusing componets and to make sure it stays properly lubricated since I do use it in very adverse weather conditions {Ks wind, rain and windy rain and windy snow}....it is also a non macro lens but still very sharp at both ends of its spectrum.........

thejohnremus

holy crap... I didn't realize there were so many versions of this lense now. I've had mine for a couple years and LOVE it. Although I'm ready to finally upgrade to a Canon... I've upgraded everything else, including going to the Mark III... but have hung onto this for a while... it's close to that time though

PBS_Kids

thejohnremus wrote:

holy crap... I didn't realize there were so many versions of this lense now. I've had mine for a couple years and LOVE it. Although I'm ready to finally upgrade to a Canon... I've upgraded everything else, including going to the Mark III... but have hung onto this for a while... it's close to that time though

Is it time yet?

Beau Arnold

I bought my non dg version 3 years back and I would not sell it for less than 700 period. It's razr sharp heres a jpeg at 200 2.8 handheld straight out of the body btw

PBS_Kids

I just ended up getting the new version from B&H.

Thanks for all the info everyone!

PineapplePhoto

Have you looked at the NEW Tamron 70-200 f2.8? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020701tamron70200.asp

It looks promising and it is cheaper than Sigma's... we just ordered 5 at work

NateWagner

of course there is always the problem that the Tamron has not actually been released yet, at least in the US.

PineapplePhoto

NateWagner wrote:

of course there is always the problem that the Tamron has not actually been released yet, at least in the US.

You can still get your hands on it. Like I said we just ordered five.

keith204

PineapplePhoto wrote:

Have you looked at the NEW Tamron 70-200 f2.8? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020701tamron70200.asp

It looks promising and it is cheaper than Sigma's... we just ordered 5 at work

Slow AF, that's gonna be the downfall of this lens.

Beau Arnold

keith204 wrote:

Slow AF, that's gonna be the downfall of this lens.

Might be ok on a tripod in the studio but if the af can not keep up with the body for sports then noway. I have shot the white lens even the famed Nikon and my non dg on a 1d keeps up. The Nikon on the new D3 was not any quicker but wow that shutter on the D3 is loud. Sorry to get off topic just comparing.

PBS_Kids

Well, my lens came in this morning. The weather is icky, so I was barely able to get a few test shots outside. With what I've seen so far, I'm totally impressed. Tack sharp and spot on. I'll put it through the paces on Saturday and see if I'm still happy.

I've tried a Tamron or 2 and was not happy with the colors and contrast at all. Could have just been my copies, but not something I felt like gambling with.