Sigma 70-200 2.8

[nellyleelephant]

Hi, anyone on here a regular user of the above?

I'm currently mulling over ordering this http://www.carmarthencameras.co.uk/product.php/589... I had been thinking about the Canon 70-300 IS USM, but apart from the extra reach and IS, is the Sigma the 'better' lens?

I shall be using it for most things including astro (that's why I'm interested in the 2.8 aperture) and motorsport. Will an extender work with this lens and my body, a 1DMK2N?

Thanks

[MudwiG]

I have the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 MK2, have you had a look at that lens?

[miniman]

MudwiG said:

I have the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 MK2, have you had a look at that lens?

That's a clear £1000 more than the one he's looking at though...

My mate has a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and to be honest it doesn't look like that one - I think that's an old one. Anyway it's a decent lens, not as good as the Canon L mentioned above but the price point is totally different.

[nellyleelephant]

miniman said:

That's a clear £1000 more than the one he's looking at though...

My mate has a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and to be honest it doesn't look like that one - I think that's an old one. Anyway it's a decent lens, not as good as the Canon L mentioned above but the price point is totally different.

The later version is a macro I think, also has image stabilisation if I remember correctly, the one I'm looking at doesn't.

I'd love some L glass, but I won't be stretching to that just yet.

[miniman]

I have the Canon L IS - and I hardly ever use the IS.

[nellyleelephant]

The camera and body will weigh about 3kg, so I won't be shooting handheld anyway!........well, not for long..........

[RobDickinson]

I've just sold my old sigma 70-200f2.8 EX HSM APO (non macro)

It was pretty decent for sharpness, sometimes poor CA but not too bad, focus was sometimes inconsistent.

Not a bad lens overall. I sold it because I got a canon version at almost the same price.

[nellyleelephant]

RobDickinson said:

I've just sold my old sigma 70-200f2.8 EX HSM APO (non macro)

It was pretty decent for sharpness, sometimes poor CA but not too bad, focus was sometimes inconsistent.

Not a bad lens overall. I sold it because I got a canon version at almost the same price.

I take it it would be the wiser choise over the 70-300 canon IS USM?

[RobDickinson]

It depends what you need/want.

200mm reach isnt 300mm.
But then the 70-300 isnt real USM and is twice as slow but opticaly its OK, tho at its poorest over 250.
Its also smaller and lighter.

Shoot in low light? Shoot sports? Shoot for subject isolation? Get the 70-200
Shoot wildlife and outdoor well lit sports and nead the extra reach? get the 70-300

[jr502]

nellyleelephant said:

I take it it would be the wiser choise over the 70-300 canon IS USM?

Definately.

I have the 70-200 EX DG HSM Macro (non OS). The constant 2.8 is essential for me as 90% of the stuff I shoot is poor light.

[nellyleelephant]

It'll be used in summer for motorsports, so the reach is important, but I could always get the extender.

In winter it will be used mainly for widefield astrophotography, where the 2.8 would be a whole lot more useful than 4-5.6.

I think I may have persuaded myself.

[RobDickinson]

If its the same as the one I just sold then this:
http://www.zarphag.com/images/orana/lionfull.jpg
is a full sized, non processed (sharpened) 200/2.8 shot though a wire mesh fence.

Opticaly it was fine, CA you can deal with , prehaps not for astro stuff?!

[nellyleelephant]

RobDickinson said:

If its the same as the one I just sold then this:
http://www.zarphag.com/images/orana/lionfull.jpg
is a full sized, non processed (sharpened) 200/2.8 shot though a wire mesh fence.

Opticaly it was fine, CA you can deal with , prehaps not for astro stuff?!

Why do you say perhaps not for astro?

The relatively fast aperture will be ideal.

[RobDickinson]

Te sigma has more CA than a canon equivelant, astro I am guessing is high contrast stuff but then it may not be important.

And I doubt the canon 70-300 is any better.

[Simpo Two]

I may be missing something but how do you do 'widefield astrophotography' (which I take means a wide field of view) with a 70-200?

[nellyleelephant]

Simpo Two said:

I may be missing something but how do you do 'widefield astrophotography' (which I take means a wide field of view) with a 70-200?

Sorry, widefield compared to the view of a telescope imaging at 200x on say, a planet.

Typically, it's galaxies, nebula and constellations.

[Simpo Two]

Ah, fair point! That would indeed make a 200mm lens realtively wide angle, yes.

[itsnotarace]

Sold my Nikon fit Sigma 70-200 2.8 and replaced it with the Nikon equivalent. The Sigma wasn't a bad lens, but the hood fit was awful and IQ was quite a bit softer that the Nikon plus it would hunt more in low light. Build quality varies enormously with Sigma EX lenses, but it's a risk you take by buying a 3rd party lens with less than perfect quality control.

You pays your money, you makes your choice.

[nellyleelephant]

Ok, how about a Canon 200 2.8 L?

[Cabinet Enforcer]

nellyleelephant said:

Hi, anyone on here a regular user of the above?

I'm currently mulling over ordering this http://www.carmarthencameras.co.uk/product.php/589... I had been thinking about the Canon 70-300 IS USM, but apart from the extra reach and IS, is the Sigma the 'better' lens?

I shall be using it for most things including astro (that's why I'm interested in the 2.8 aperture) and motorsport. Will an extender work with this lens and my body, a 1DMK2N?

Thanks

It's overpriced at £400 (and that lens is pre 2005 vintage), a brand new one is only £550 at warehouseexpress and it will have a 3year warranty (assuming it's genuine UK lens). I know what I would go for, though plenty on ebay seem to go for 400 or more, crackers.

The new OS model is a lot more, but is also optically superior to the older model. It should cost about the same as the 2.8L non-IS, but is brand spankers new, so no 2nd hand ones available.