Quick advice Sigma 70-200 f2.8

[sud]

I have the opportunity to buy a Sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 DG MACRO HSM really cheap, its brand spanking new for $980.00. I origanly wanted the Canon IS version but that is more then double.

I would like to eventually shoot weddings and do some event photography once my skills have been honed, Take a look at these pics please and let me know if you think its sharp enough or the quality would be good enough for what I would eventually be using the lens for. Or should I rather save longer and get the canon.

Remembering that the Sigma has no IS

 

[bmcgrath]

The Sigma is a great lens. Obviously it's not as good as Canons version but it sure isn't bad for the money!

I've used this lens but mainly just in sport. I was very pleased by it. AF was quite accurate, it's sharp and good contrast and colour.

If you want to take a look at some of the sports stuff I took with it have a look here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bazzymcg/tags/sigma70200mmf28ex/
I know you're prob not after sports at all but thought I'd show ya anyway.

Other than that I hear it's a great lens to use for the area you plan on using it in. I say go for it

 

[dukeblue91]

Sud,
I don't know where you are from but that Sigma lens is currently $720.00 on B&H.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533555-REG/Sigma_579_101_70_200mm_f_2_8_II_EX.html

You could also look at the Tamron version, that one is a $100.00 less and actually a bit sharper wide open.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/539396-REG/Tamron_AF001C_700_70_200mm_f_2_8_Di_LD.html

I have the Tamron for my Sony a700 and it is awesome.

 

[anubis]

Buy at your own risk, I guess....

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx

The reviewer went through 3 copies of the lens and couldn't find a good one before finally giving up on trying to review it

 

[ChrisA]

The reviewer went through 3 copies of the lens and couldn't find a good one before finally giving up on trying to review it

The example images are all reduces resolution and so I cant know if they are sharp. You've have to seen full size images. But they seem to lack "punch" and have a blue cast to them. This could be just the way you post processed them and nothing to do with the lens. One of the things you get with the Nikon version of this lens is good optical coating that render color in a way that matches other Nikon lenses. So they all have the same "look". I suspect that Canon "L" series lenses are likewise matched.

That is the main difference between the Nikon/Canon lenses and the third party lenses: Unit to unit variability. It costs a lot of money to set up a factory so that each lens comes out absolutly the same and this is where Sigma, Tamron and the like save money. There is a reason some things cost more then others

As for price. It you are using this lens to make money don't think about the price think about the ratio of capital equipment cost to gross income. Your ratio should be not much different then say a plumber's or an auto mechanic's ratio.

BTW I can buy a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for less money at B&H. I don't think you've found that good of a deal.

 

[sud]

Thanks for the advice, Think you are probably right will wait a bit longer for the canon.

 

[anubis]

Thanks for the advice, Think you are probably right will wait a bit longer for the canon.

Good move. All four of the Canon 70-200 varieties get rave reviews and the image quality of the two f/4 versions have some of the highest resolution scores of any lens ever tested. The f/2.8's have equally excellent image quality when stopped down to f/4 (but with the option of using the 2.8 if you need). I'm personally saving up to get the f/4 IS version or perhaps the f/2.8 IS

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Uh, that's way over retail (a "good" deal on one of these would be $600 new) and the example shots don't look any good. For $1000, buy the Canon! That's what it costs brand new (70-200mm f/2.8 non IS)