Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 not so bad after all

[flosseR]

I have , except my 50mm prime, only Sigma lenses now. all of them HSM, except the Macro lens, and I have to say my newest addition he 70-200mm f2.8 is not really al that bad as the internet makes you believe. I am actually loving it. Its heavy but its great and its sharp, VERY sharp.

does anyone else have a good copy of this lens or am I the odd crop, because there seem to be a LOT of bad copies of this lens.

this is the Nikon mount and the lens is the 70-200mm MACRO HSM II


Cheers,
F

 

[r.j.s]

I had that lens, and it was a great lens ... no complaints from me.

 

[Kronie]

Same here. Wonderful lens. I only sold it because I didn't need the 2.8 (and the extra weight) and bought the 70-200 F4L IS.

 

[OreoCookie]

All f/2.8 70-200 mm zooms are heavy. One reason why Canon's slower f/4 lenses are so appealing. But in terms of IQ, many third-party lenses can compete (especially in price/performance).

 

[akdj]

I love my Sigmas. I've never used the 70-200, but it does seems sometimes, if it's not White with Red ring (or Nikkor), it is easily dismissed.

I have a really hard time believing there are SO many bad copies of any of their upper end lenses. A friend of mine has been doing camera repair for the better part of 4 decades now. He swears by Sigma's craftsmanship. Their construction is legit all the way through the bearings, wiring, motors, and lenses. He's got great stories about "some" companies substituting bearings for plastic balls, plastic internal screws, piss poor wiring internally, etc. In his opinion, Sigma has always rivaled the build quality of upper end Canon, Nikkor, Olympia and Minolta (dating ourselves, I know).

Some may not care for the finish. I dig it. But where it counts, IQ, the Sigmas are excellent pieces of glass (their upper end, IMO). I have the Sigma 50/1.4 and the 10-20. Also, I've used a friends 150-500/5-6.3 with both my 5d2 and crop 40D. Amazing results with wildlife and mountain climbing photos. I'm eyeing this lens up right now, vs the Canon 100-400L. The extra reach is nice...but I'm holding out for new lens announcements from both companies this fall....sorry, I digress.

Don't read the internet reviews AFTER a purchase. Only before. After you make to investment, shoot it, learn it, and perfect it> You'll find issues, if there are any. (And again, I doubt there are any....they have excellent tolerances and QC on their high end gear). And in my opinion, "Made in China" doesn't hold as much weight as it did "Pre-Olympics" Obviously, they know what they're doing these days!

J

 

[Mr.Noisy]

this is the Nikon mount and the lens is the 70-200mm MACRO HSM II

same as r.j.s & kronie great lens, I have the Nikon mount version, really sharp, not light but great contrast too, love this lens

 

[compuwar]

I love my Sigmas. I've never used the 70-200, but it does seems sometimes, if it's not White with Red ring (or Nikkor), it is easily dismissed.

No, it's easily dismissed not because of sample variation, but because of the optical formula. Sigma doesn't have MTFs up for the new version, but the old version is clearly inferior to both the Canon and Nikon offerings- the old version at 200mm didn't reach maximum sharpness until f/11. It had close to the same quality as the 80-200 Nikkor from the MTF charts, so it's a reasonably good lens, but not in the same territory as the N/C offerings.

I have a really hard time believing there are SO many bad copies of any of their upper end lenses.

Shoot them side-by-side, then you'll know it's not sample variation. In fact, compare the 70-200 to the Sigma 120-300 wide open at the long end and you'll see it's not even manufacturer variation

Some may not care for the finish. I dig it. But where it counts, IQ, the Sigmas are excellent pieces of glass (their upper end, IMO). I have the Sigma 50/1.4 and the 10-20. Also, I've used a friends 150-500/5-6.3 with both my 5d2 and crop 40D. Amazing results with wildlife and mountain climbing photos.

Frankly, your evaluation criteria aren't as strict as most folks who evaluate lenses. That doesn't mean the 150-500 won't produce images that meet your needs, but none of the Sigma n-500mm lenses are "amazing" in my book. They're quite good, _especially_ for the price- but in terms of pure IQ, they're a distant second to lots of lenses. That's why comparison is dangerous- once you've seen what really good glass looks like, you'll see the flaws in anything that isn't top-tier.

I've seen lots of great images made with second tier lenses- but they're still not as good as the same image would be with a tier-1 lens. For instance, the Nikkor 80-400VR is a second tier lens. I've taken images with it, I've sold images taken with it, but it'll never beat an image taken with my 400/2.8 except in the rare case that the two stops of light don't bring enough to get a shot from a moving platform. 99.999999998% of the time, it's images will be visibly worse than those from the prime. If you learn to read MTF charts, you can see it in the charts, otherwise, if you shoot two lenses, you can see the differences in the images.

Most people aren't that critical when it comes to IQ, or they don't have years of looking at samples from hundreds of lenses to be able to compare. So, they get a lens, it produces better images than they're used to seeing, and they think everyone who finds fault with it is a lens snob, or that they've somehow gotten a sample that outperforms the optical formula. I suspect it's much like wine- I'm impressed with wines I like, but many of them are horrible to a true wine connoisseur, who's experience and palate run circles around mine, and who can say "Oh, if you like that, then try *this*" and produce something a lot better- sometimes better than my ability to appreciate it.

 

[wheelhot]

compuwar, u just nailed it!

 

[akdj]

"Frankly, your evaluation criteria aren't as strict as most folks who evaluate lenses."

No, Frankly, your evaluation criteria are too strict. You talk about it later in your post...."how critical MOST people are..."
If you shoot charts, then OK, there are critical differences....In the real world? Hmmm...show me! I shoot with a half dozen pieces of L glass and a DO lens. I know great glass...and I've seen and shot with crappy glass. Evaluation to me is ONLY in the real world.

"That doesn't mean the 150-500 won't produce images that meet your needs, but none of the Sigma n-500mm lenses are "amazing" in my book."

Again, you're reading or wrote a crappy book. There are amazing shots made with Sigma lenses.

"They're quite good, _especially_ for the price- but in terms of pure IQ, they're a distant second to lots of lenses."

Ridiculous...case in point...Sigma 50mm 1.4 compared to Canon and Nikor's offerings.

"That's why comparison is dangerous- once you've seen what really good glass looks like, you'll see the flaws in anything that isn't top-tier."

Whatever I've been shooting over two decades...opportunities to use some incredible pieces of kit. Glass I could NEVER afford! Whether it's top tier Glass or Body....the shot is definitely made by whoever is behind the viewfinder....not what is in front.

"I've seen lots of great images made with second tier lenses- but they're still not as good as the same image would be with a tier-1 lens."

Really? Now that is interesting and might just prove your point. So, if you could direct me to wherever these shots exist, I'd be glad to check it out. See, my point is this....whoever has a given lens and knows how to use it best, most efficiently and for the best shot at that time....compared to whoever owns Lens B and knows the same amount about his lens, shooting at the exact same location, lighting, subject, etc....

If both shooters are the same caliber....would there be enough subjective difference to determine which lens was which? Maybe...I agree, maybe it could be done....but ONLY on specific type of shots comparing different lenses and their capabilities....IE, Faster shots (Sports, wildlife) vs. Landscape....where one lens may best another. Believe me, I was more than impressed when I got my first piece L glass (70-200 2.8IS) many years back...the most amazing lens I had ever put on my camera....it felt amazing, looked incredible, focused quick and took Awesome Pictures!!! BUT, I've seen shots others have taken with the Sigmas, Tamrons, Niks, etc....even old Olympus and Minolta 35mm film shots that are amazing! Top tier shots do NOT have to be shot with "Top Tier" lenses. That's just not a fact.

"For instance, the Nikkor 80-400VR is a second tier lens. I've taken images with it, I've sold images taken with it, but it'll never beat an image taken with my 400/2.8 except in the rare case that the two stops of light don't bring enough to get a shot from a moving platform."

Completely irrelevant to this conversation...I would NEVER argue that a second tier zoom could compete with a 1st tier prime. That has nothing to do with this conversation!

"99.999999998% of the time, it's images will be visibly worse than those from the prime. "

Really? Not 100%

"If you learn to read MTF charts, you can see it in the charts..." I know how to read MTF charts...

"...otherwise, if you shoot two lenses, you can see the differences in the images."

This isn't about two lenses....this is about lenses from third party companies with the same attributes....focal length, speed, and build....as lenses from C and N.

"Most people aren't that critical when it comes to IQ, or they don't have years of looking at samples from hundreds of lenses to be able to compare."

Precisely, and MOST people aren't pixel peepers...and MOST people are OUR customers You're correct....MOST people don't look at sample from hundreds of lenses....including me! I have less than a dozen lenses and it's how I have made my living for quite a while now. In fact, I don't know many professional photogs that spend their time doing that....they spend most of their time perfecting shots with the gear they have!

"So, they get a lens, it produces better images than they're used to seeing, and they think everyone who finds fault with it is a lens snob, or that they've somehow gotten a sample that outperforms the optical formula."

I certainly wouldn't argue "Owner's blindfolded ignorance"...or the common need to defent their latest purchase til the death....I see it happen ALL the time, with many different products....Cars, Home theater receivers, cameras, tires, Apple vs. PC....iPhone v Blackberry...it's everywhere, the need to defend one's purchased. I think it's human instinct, especially in this society amongst men...in the old days, we got to defend our homes and ranches, and caves, etc....Now, during the more civil times, the internet forum has become our battle ground And we lose our competitive edge if we don't somehow appreciate what we have!

I don't know if any of that made any kind of sense whatsoever....but I do agree with you about this. However, i don't think it was the OP's question or intent He was more curious about pros/cons on buying third party lenses.

"I suspect it's much like wine- I'm impressed with wines I like, but many of them are horrible to a true wine connoisseur, who's experience and palate run circles around mine, and who can say "Oh, if you like that, then try *this*" and produce something a lot better- sometimes better than my ability to appreciate it."

That seems a bit far fetched to me. Good lenses are obvious. The build quality, the optics, when you twist it on and look through the VF for the first time, the speed, the AF, the end result....ultimately, the picture....all very obvious, even to the novice, I would assume.

You are correct in the fact that crappy lenses take crappy pics....

But I don't think that is what this thread is about....the question is whether or not Sigma can compete with the offerings from Canon and Nikon and I totally believe they can. Are they better than Canon? No way! But can they compete and make great shots, ABSOLUTELY!!!! I have a Sigma 1.4 that I paid less than 500 bucks for....I have a Canon 50mm L that I paid almost 3 timest that much for. I'm not sure that difference (in price/performance ration) exists at 2.8 shooting in the same conditions.

J

 

[akdj]

Compuwar...

Just for reference sake, my bag only consists of two 3rd party lenses right now, and both are from Sigma....the 50 I mentioned earlier and the 10-20 for my 40D. Also, for the APs-c side, I have the Canon 28-135 and 70-300.
For L glass, I own the 24-105, 24-70, 70-200 (2.8is), 35, 50, and 200 (2.8) and 400 DO/IS primes. Looking and trying not to buy the 85/1.2

My point...I appreciate great glass, as you do. But, as an owner of said glass, I also appreciate the fact that other glass can and does take great shots. A friend of mine has the 150-500 that I talked about earlier and to get that kind of reach in the Canon line, I have to spend both my wife and I's paychecks for the next two months! (And, NOT pay the mortgage). So there is a decision to make, and it's an easy one....the Sigma for length....and this fall/winter, when I shoot the moose rut, I can stand a little further away....be a bit safer, and still shoot some unreal shots!!!

J

 

[JFreak]

Calm down.

First of all, you need to get the picture. If you can't, it doesn't matter if your gear cost a million or not. But if you have a choice, the difference between a good pic and a great pic might be huge (or not) and the price difference between the gear might be substantial (or not). Everyone that sees the pic will surely only care about the pic, not about the gear that took the pic (and definetely not the person using the gear).

Final product rules, period.

Surely skillful use of sub-par gear leads to better pics than a doofus using state-of-the-art gear. No question. And I bet group of skillful professionals using state-of-the-art gear leads to better pics than same said professionals using sub-par gear. Again, no question.

It's just that only pro's can get it all -- the rest of us will just have to keep practicing

 

[flosseR]

please no flame war

guys, i wanst trying to start a flame war. I mereley wondered if the 70-200mm is an "above average batch of bad lenses. Reason was that I read so many bad reviews of that lens. The price i purchased mine for however made me jump on it and it still has warranty so any focusing issues can be handled by that , if there were any.

Sorry if this all came across the wrong way or anything.

//FR

PS: I paid 400USD for mine with warranty. I am an enthusiast photographer, not a pro. I dont make money with this, purely a hobby. I manage an IT deptmnt for a multinational corp for a real job so for me, any penny counts.

 

[Nicholie]

guys, i wanst trying to start a flame war.

You didn't. He did. He's to fault.

The Sigma 70-200 is a fine lens that accomplishes 90% of the same photo quality in real world shots as the Nikkor/Canon equivalents. The charts can shove it, as photography is far more than some technical hobby.

A entirely technical photographer is both boring, and bland.

 

[compuwar]

"Frankly, your evaluation criteria aren't as strict as most folks who evaluate lenses."

No, Frankly, your evaluation criteria are too strict. You talk about it later in your post...."how critical MOST people are..."

No, my criteria are quite on the mark when dealing with commercial clients, photo editors and publishers, etc. You criteria are obviously more lax than most folks who evaluate lenses- they're in the ballpark of most people who use lenses, but that's a different argument altogether. Even in fine art sales, when someone buys an image from me to hang on their wall, I want it to be the best image I can possibly give them. My best sellers aren't always my best work, but to me that doesn't mean that I shouldn't strive to make my work better over time. People who purchase large prints from me will get better images for their money than if I'd never upgraded my equipment.

If you shoot charts, then OK, there are critical differences....In the real world? Hmmm...show me! I shoot with a half dozen pieces of L glass and a DO lens. I know great glass...and I've seen and shot with crappy glass. Evaluation to me is ONLY in the real world.

If you're saying that flaws shown in a test don't translate to real images, then frankly you're not discerning. Sharpness is sharpness, and its measurement is science, not art. Likewise contrast and distortion. If my 80-400VR wasn't out on permanent loan several hundred miles away, I'd happily show you because the actual sharpness between it and my 400mm prime is easily visible in images. If your argument is that if images from an $1100 lens are good enough then there's no point in getting a $7800 lens (and driving around in a 9 year old vehicle because of it) then I'd say that my priorities aren't yours, and my standards aren't yours.

Are you really insisting that a lens that doesn't reach its maximum sharpness until f/11 is equal to one with better sharpness which reaches its maximum sharpness at f/4?

"That doesn't mean the 150-500 won't produce images that meet your needs, but none of the Sigma n-500mm lenses are "amazing" in my book."

Again, you're reading or wrote a crappy book. There are amazing shots made with Sigma lenses.

There's a whole raft of difference between an amazing shot and an amazing lens, and more importantly (and to my point) an amazing shot made with an amazing lens- if you can't tell the difference you aren't very discerning, and again, I specifically said the "n-500" lenses, of which I've owned one and shot three samples. I've sold shots from the Sigma 50-500 lens, that doesn't make it an "amazing" performer- it's performance is quite good (better at 500mm than the Nikon 80-400 at 400mm in terms of sharpness- visible in prints 8"x10" in my experience.) However, its flaws are also visible, it loses in contrast compared to the Nikkor for instance, again visible in relatively small prints.

If I need fine detail from excellent sharpness and good contrast the Sigma 50-500mm wouldn't be one of the first probably half-dozen choices I'd make for real-world shooting. You might choose differently, and you might think your images were very sharp- you might even claim sample variation, but you'd be wrong. The fact is that a lens can't outperform its optical formula- that's why MTFs are important, they let you know the limits of the lens's design.

I used to know a guy who'd run around a place I shot with a spotting scope and a 100-400IS (which is better than the Nikkor 80-400VR, but still not a top-tier lens) and he'd be raving over his 8x10 prints from both. I'd say that 0% of his digiscoped images and probably about 10% of his other images were of sufficient quality that they'd meet my standards. He was happy with them, and that's fine, but for him to insist they were sharp, high-quality images would be an empty claim. Equipment can limit your results, and there's a lot of difference between shooting the digiscope you have and a supertele you should get.

"They're quite good, _especially_ for the price- but in terms of pure IQ, they're a distant second to lots of lenses."

Ridiculous...case in point...Sigma 50mm 1.4 compared to Canon and Nikor's offerings.

Reading comprehension 101 again,

none of the Sigma n-500mm lenses

the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is hardly an n-500mm lens. Please try to stick to my points, and not put words into my mouth.

"That's why comparison is dangerous- once you've seen what really good glass looks like, you'll see the flaws in anything that isn't top-tier."

Whatever I've been shooting over two decades...opportunities to use some incredible pieces of kit. Glass I could NEVER afford! Whether it's top tier Glass or Body....the shot is definitely made by whoever is behind the viewfinder....not what is in front.

I've been shooting for over three decades, I own incredible glass and I've owned less than stellar glass, and even a couple of really crappy lenses in formats from 5x7" to APS-C. Both the photographer and the tool create the image. If that weren't true, then nobody would buy expensive lenses- that may not make much difference in vacation snaps, but it makes all the difference in the world to a publisher's photo editors, a gallery owner or anyone else with limited space and high quality requirements. To me, it makes a difference in the craftsmanship part of my work. A good carpenter can make a reasonably good chair with poor tools, but it'll never be the same as a chair he makes with great tools.

"I've seen lots of great images made with second tier lenses- but they're still not as good as the same image would be with a tier-1 lens."

Really? Now that is interesting and might just prove your point. So, if you could direct me to wherever these shots exist, I'd be glad to check it out.

If I still had crappy glass, I'd happily show you the shots- but it wasn't worth my time to continue to shoot with even above average but not top-tier glass like the Sigma 50-500 when I put my money into the Nikon 400mm prime. But it's easy to check out- just find a lens rental place that offers a lens with a good MTF curve for say sharpness and one that's not so good, then rent them both and take some shots that require edge-to-edge sharpness. On the better lens, you'll see better sharpness for more of the frame, and if you print large, you'll see more detail in the prints. It's physics, so the physical effects are quite visible.

See, my point is this....whoever has a given lens and knows how to use it best, most efficiently and for the best shot at that time....compared to whoever owns Lens B and knows the same amount about his lens, shooting at the exact same location, lighting, subject, etc....

If both shooters are the same caliber....would there be enough subjective difference to determine which lens was which? Maybe...I agree, maybe it

It's not subjective difference that I talk about, it's objective differences. Can I get better images with poorer equipment than some people- yes- and I've sold lots of images from poorer equipment, but the people who follow my fine art work and who've seen prints from earlier and later shots can see an objective quality difference in my prints, not just a subjective one.

could be done....but ONLY on specific type of shots comparing different lenses and their capabilities....IE, Faster shots (Sports, wildlife) vs. Landscape....where one lens may best another. Believe me, I was more than impressed when I got my first piece L glass (70-200 2.8IS) many years back...the most amazing lens I had ever put on my camera....it felt amazing, looked incredible, focused quick and took Awesome Pictures!!! BUT, I've seen shots others have taken with the Sigmas, Tamrons, Niks, etc....even old Olympus and Minolta 35mm film shots that are amazing! Top tier shots do NOT have to be shot with "Top Tier" lenses. That's just not a fact.

Again, I fear you have a comprehension problem- what I have stated is that top-tier shots are better when taken with top-tier lenses. Nowhere have I stated that one can't get good, or even saleable images with less than stellar glass- in fact I've pointed out that I've done so.

"For instance, the Nikkor 80-400VR is a second tier lens. I've taken images with it, I've sold images taken with it, but it'll never beat an image taken with my 400/2.8 except in the rare case that the two stops of light don't bring enough to get a shot from a moving platform."

Completely irrelevant to this conversation...I would NEVER argue that a second tier zoom could compete with a 1st tier prime. That has nothing to do with this conversation!

"99.999999998% of the time, it's images will be visibly worse than those from the prime. "

Really? Not 100%

"If you learn to read MTF charts, you can see it in the charts..." I know how to read MTF charts...

"...otherwise, if you shoot two lenses, you can see the differences in the images."

This isn't about two lenses....this is about lenses from third party companies with the same attributes....focal length, speed, and build....as lenses from C and N.

No, it's not- at least the post you're replying to isn't. My points were exactly the following:

The lens test reports that talk about the Sigma talk about it in relation to the same lenses from Canon and Nikon and at least in the last version that Sigma posted MTF charts for it was clearly inferior to those manufacturer lenses. It's not a sample variation issue, it's an optical formula issue, hence my pointing to the Sigma 120-300 to show it's not the manufacturer (so you see, your comprehension aside, I wasn't saying bad things about Sigma, just the difference between what the 70-200 vs the alternatives produce in terms of reviews.)

The Sigma n-500 lenses don't rate "amazing" on my scale because i've seen too many images from lenses that do to be swayed. They're very good, especially very good value, but they're not and won't ever be Tier-1 lenses, not matter how much you personally like them.

Once you've spent some time with Tier-1 lenses and excellent images from them, your basis for evaluation changes.

That's what my response was about, it's pretty easy to read IMO, and I've written enough for magazines that I find that editors don't tend to do much to change my meanings, so I'm going to have to say that the comprehension problem is on your end.

"Most people aren't that critical when it comes to IQ, or they don't have years of looking at samples from hundreds of lenses to be able to compare."

Precisely, and MOST people aren't pixel peepers...and MOST people are OUR customers You're correct....MOST people don't look at sample from hundreds of lenses....including me! I have less than a dozen lenses and it's how I have made my living for quite a while now. In fact, I don't know many professional photogs that spend their time doing that....they spend most of their time perfecting shots with the gear they have!

It's not pixel peeping, it's about your own acceptance of IQ. My levels, and the level of quality I represent to a client have a bar that's set higher than most.

Most "professional" photographers are shooting school pictures, little league and places where IQ doesn't need to be stellar. Yet a good percentage of them still choose to shoot with Tier-1 lenses rather than kit lenses. A fair number of them market themselves on quality- all along the line. Just like some of us used to develop our own film to get the results we wanted while others were shipping to pro labs and still others were going to the grocery store- to me it matters, perhaps to you it doesn't.

You can look at say an exhibit of Ansel Adams work, and you can see how poorly his images were printed in the beginning, and how much better they were printed in the end- and even which images he chose to reprint when he got better and his tools got better:

Objectively, his enlarger lenses got better
Objectively, his papers got better
Objectively, his filters got better
Objectively, his chemicals got better
Subjectively, the negative was the exact same negative

That's my point- when you take the same subjective level of photography then there is a visible, and sometimes quite marked difference in results when you change equipment anywhere in the equation- but Adams was one of those people who cared about quality in his work, so reprinting on newer VC papers made sense to him.

"So, they get a lens, it produces better images than they're used to seeing, and they think everyone who finds fault with it is a lens snob, or that they've somehow gotten a sample that outperforms the optical formula."

I don't know if any of that made any kind of sense whatsoever....but I do agree with you about this. However, i don't think it was the OP's question or intent He was more curious about pros/cons on buying third party lenses.

I didn't respond to the OP's posting though...

"I suspect it's much like wine- I'm impressed with wines I like, but many of them are horrible to a true wine connoisseur, who's experience and palate run circles around mine, and who can say "Oh, if you like that, then try *this*" and produce something a lot better- sometimes better than my ability to appreciate it."

That seems a bit far fetched to me. Good lenses are obvious. The build quality, the optics, when you twist it on and look through the VF for the first time, the speed, the AF, the end result....ultimately, the picture....all very obvious, even to the novice, I would assume.

The difference is that the novice's basis for comparison leads to the OP's "sample variation" defense. The OP likely hasn't spent a lot of time looking at prints from Tier-1 glass. Let's say that the OP had a Tier-3 kit lens, then they move up to a Tier-2 lens- they're looking at lens evaluations from folks who've shot Tier-1 lenses and are comparing it to a Tier-2 lens and find the Tier-2 lens lacking in certain aspects. Our intrepid novice doesn't get what they're seeing because the Tier-2 lens is so much better than his Tier-3 lens was, more importantly there's nowhere near the same level of difference between a Tier-2 lens and a Tier-1 lens. Once our novice gets some real-world experience with, or sees comparitive shots then perhaps they'll see what the lens evaluators did up front. That's been true of the Sigma 70-200 (though I haven't seen the latest version from Nov of last year) and it's been true of the Sigma N-500mm lenses.

Finally, the correlation between lens testing and the real world can depend heavily on what you shoot- and your ability to translate. For instance, I don't think anyone would advise using even the soon-to-be-released Nikon 70-200 to shoot art reproduction on a FF sensor body- sharpness on anyone's 70-200mm lens falls off sharply (NPI) 15mm from the center of the frame. Knowing where your lenses' sweet spots are and where they fail makes knowing where to frame a shot, how to frame a shot, what aperture will work for the best results, and when you're compromising a property in an image to get a shot or when you simply should rent or buy a different lens for a particular shoot become more important if you start to compete for things like wall space in a gallery or page space in a publication- because the people making the choices in those sorts of markets will have seen Tier-1 images from Tier-1 glass, and that may make all the difference in the world as to if they choose your image or images- in some cases more so than your salesmanship.

 

[compuwar]

guys, i wanst trying to start a flame war. I mereley wondered if the 70-200mm is an "above average batch of bad lenses. Reason was that I read so many bad reviews of that lens. The price i purchased mine for however made me jump on it and it still has warranty so any focusing issues can be handled by that , if there were any.

Sorry if this all came across the wrong way or anything.

//FR

PS: I paid 400USD for mine with warranty. I am an enthusiast photographer, not a pro. I dont make money with this, purely a hobby. I manage an IT deptmnt for a multinational corp for a real job so for me, any penny counts.

Sigma's quality control is actually quite good these days. The reviewers are simply comparing it to lenses that are optically better in the same focal range- especially at wider apertures. If you're getting the results you want with it, then you should be happy with it- that's what counts.

 

[dmb70]

Personally I think we need to clarify what we are shooting & in what kind of conditions when comparing bang for the buck.
From my limited experience you won't get the same quality with the Sigma vs the Canon IS version when shooting wide open at 200mm hand held in low light. However if you were stopping down to say f/10 in good light with a fast shutter you might get comparable quality.

 

[compuwar]

Personally I think we need to clarify what we are shooting & in what kind of conditions when comparing bang for the buck.
From my limited experience you won't get the same quality with the Sigma vs the Canon IS version when shooting wide open at 200mm hand held in low light. However if you were stopping down to say f/10 in good light with a fast shutter you might get comparable quality.

There are so many factors that go into a value proposition that it's a bad path to try to get down- does resale value count? What if you never resell? Does "once in a lifetime" shot equal "years of use?" If you never shoot wide, the Canon f/4 beats the 2.8 in IQ terms. A D40 and kit lens have excellent bang for the buck- but they're not always the right tool for a particular shoot, let alone a particular photographer....

 

[akdj]

"Equipment can limit your results, and there's a lot of difference between shooting the digiscope you have and a supertele you should get."

Compuwar...on this we agree

I guess my point to my diatribe was just the simple fact that Sigma can shoot excellent pictures....maybe not for fine art galleries, or the ultimate performance on MTF charts...but great shots, none-the less.

Also, I am not an engineer nor a lens designer....however, a friend of mine has been a camera and lens repair tech for many years. My point was also to echo his comments on Sigma build quality. I have had good luck with them. Too many times, third party lenses are outright dismissed. I figured that's where you were coming from too. Not sure our OP is planning on filling art galleries or has the high end clientielle you do, but your points are valid and I am not here to dismiss $10,000 prime lenses that weigh 40 pounds. Of course they're exceptional! Of course I'm envious...and of course they will outresolve any of the every day lenses we can buy at Best Buy

However, "Subjectively" speaking....because again, MOST, and I repeat, MOST photographers are not shooting "Objective" situations. (Charts). We are shooting Little League games, mountains, cows, and kids. There isn't really a chance to take objective measurements in these situations. They are real world shots that we see, jump out of the car, maybe have 2 or 3 seconds to adjust aperture or shutter speed and take the shot. The bear is gone after that. We got the shot that we got. No going back to take it over. In these situations, the best lens is the lens on your camera. Not the one in the bag...I guess that's where I'm coming from....

I am a photographer and a right brained, creative A personality. I buy alot of photo rags, but rarely pay attention to the charts....maybe I should. Just seems to me that like everything else....cars, speakers, skiis, etc. there are so many opinions. For so many folks, excluding the ultra rich, we live on a budget and there is a law of diminishing returns I tend to pay more attention to the "conclusion" of the review than the tech guy that measures the technical aspects of the lens or body. And you're probably right, since I AM charging money, I probably SHOULD pay attention....but I don't! I tend to take it for granted that what I can afford, I will have to learn how to use and make due with what I have. Generally, there isn't anyone standing next to me (not being facicious, this does happen at sporting events and other live situations that many others are shooting)....shooting with better gear that the clients have a chance to compare with and decide upon.

I do feel that the gear I have is decent enough to use in business, but I also feel that the guy/gal shooting with an XTi, with experience, should not be automatically dismissed because of his/her gear. And I know you're not doing this....again, I just felt the need to jump in and stand up for the stigma of Sigma

Take care...no harm, no foul. Also....I am, too, a big believer in primes vs. zooms. I am currently eyeing up the 85 1.2 for my wife, as she wants to shoot portraits this winter in the garage

Jer

 

[compuwar]

Too many times, third party lenses are outright dismissed. I figured that's where you were coming from too.

I'm pretty-sure I've recommended at least two or three third party lenses here, at least one (Tamron 90mm SP Di) twice in the last ~3 days...

However, "Subjectively" speaking....because again, MOST, and I repeat, MOST photographers are not shooting "Objective" situations. (Charts). We are shooting Little League games, mountains, cows, and kids. There isn't really a chance to take objective measurements in these situations. They are real world shots that we see, jump out of the car, maybe have 2 or 3 seconds to adjust aperture or shutter speed and take the shot. The bear is gone after that. We got the shot that we got. No going back to take it over. In these situations, the best lens is the lens on your camera. Not the one in the bag...I guess that's where I'm coming from....

Where I'm coming from is that that's why objective tests exist- so we can make those choices before we have to take those shots. I see lots of people who dismiss testing as unnecessary- but if you don't know how your equipment performs you can hardly make the best use of it- that doesn't mean you can't use it, but your use isn't always going to be optimal. Likewise, if you don't know how similar equipment performs, you may actually choose the wrong gear based upon price rather than performance.

I am a photographer and a right brained, creative A personality. I buy alot of photo rags, but rarely pay attention to the charts....maybe I should. Just seems to me that like everything else....cars, speakers, skiis, etc. there are so many opinions.

That's the point- the charts are there to give you something by which to gauge the opinions- because they're easily repeatable measurements. It's like hyperfocal distance calculators- you may not need it for every shot, but when the difference is having to nail the shot and trying to nail the shot, the person who uses the information to their advantage knows they're walking away with the keeper. Sometimes that doesn't matter, sometimes it does- shooting something that's going to move through a zone on an undetermined path with no time to focus? Then the right tool is the calculator- you can try to do it by feel and hope you make it, or you can set up and hit the button at the right time- my point isn't that one's the only choice, just that one gives you some measure of almost guaranteed success, and the other may or may not work. Let's take another example- if you know the Sigma 70-200 reaches maximum sharpness at f/11 and you're shooting somewhere where the background distance is enough that it doesn't matter, but the details in the image will matter- if you didn't know that- that is you or someone hadn't actually measured it- what would be the chance of you deciding to use that aperture? The more you know your gear, the more you know how to choose and use your gear and the more creative possibilities you have open to you.

For so many folks, excluding the ultra rich, we live on a budget and there is a law of diminishing returns I tend to pay more attention to the "conclusion" of the review than the tech guy that measures the technical aspects of the lens or body. And you're probably right, since I AM charging money, I probably SHOULD pay attention....but I don't! I tend to take it for granted that what I can afford, I will have to learn how to use and make due with what I have.

While I'm not saying you should pay attention, I'm saying that (a) if you do, you'll make more informed decisions and (b) pretending that objective measurements don't affect subjective images ignores a slice of reality. We can argue all day about how big the effect is, but the physics make the effect true no matter what.

Take care...no harm, no foul. Also....I am, too, a big believer in primes vs. zooms. I am currently eyeing up the 85 1.2 for my wife, as she wants to shoot portraits this winter in the garage

Jer

If you don't have high ceilings, you're going to want to try to do as much seated stuff as you can, getting modifiers up high enough in a low-ceilinged space is no fun- short chairs and couches without their legs on help.

Frankly you're probably not going to want that shallow a depth of field for good portraits, a garage is deep enough for good background separation- if I were you, I'd get a slower 85 and spend the delta on props and backgrounds.

 

[akdj]

"If you don't have high ceilings, you're going to want to try to do as much seated stuff as you can, getting modifiers up high enough in a low-ceilinged space is no fun- short chairs and couches without their legs on help."

14' ceilings in the garage....the reason we decided not to rent co-op studio space this winter. It made a perfect studio! It's almost 25' wide and 30' deep. More like a shop than garage and it's heated for comfort Those are great ideas though....popping legs off in those instances. Thanks

"Frankly you're probably not going to want that shallow a depth of field for good portraits, a garage is deep enough for good background separation- if I were you, I'd get a slower 85 and spend the delta on props and backgrounds."

Damn...I accidentally bought it last night, oops I don't know why I've had such a lust for this lens. A friend of mine's shots at the local wildlife refuge finally sold me. Just outside of Anchorage, we have a small refuge...bears don't hibernate (they feed them all winter) and unless they're playing with a tire or scratching their back on the fence....you may as well be 600 miles out of town Pretty cool place to shoot and not a lot of animal movement, so the lax AF performance of the 1.2 is less of an issue. I am very drawn to the 1.2 shots. I know there is a lot less keepers when shooting that wide but thanks to digital, that's not as expensive anymore. Not to mention, the shots at 2.8 are just magical compared to my 70-200 2.8 at 85mm. Not that the zoom sucks, it just can't compare. The other side of the coin for me was the fact that I can put it on the 40D for a head up portrait, the 5d2 for waste up. Essentially an 85 and 135 in one package. Obviously, I could've done the same with the 1.8....I just really dig the creamy bokeh of the 1.2 on portraits. Again, it just stomps my other L glass...all 2.8, so it should.

Sorry to side track the thread. I'm glad we both agree on most points. I suppose for me....as far as the technical/objective side is concerned, I have never paid as much attention because there are so few choices on the market. Once you've decided to invest in Nikon or Canon (and now, legitimately Sony) for professional shooting, you are limited on which lenses to choose. Instead of me spending the time checking out the technical details, I have always chosen to either (A) Rent the lens(es) in question or borrow them and then (B) go shoot with them in the situations I'm intending to use it. It's how I have chosen between buying L glass or regular Canon EF. I purchased the Sigma 1.4 after renting the Canon 50L for a month and borrowing a friend's Sigma. I could not, for the life of me, find situations that I couldn't get 99.9% of what I could out of the Canon vs. the Sigma. I was terrified buying the lens for fear of a bad copy, but you find the right retailer with return option and give it a shot. I won. My Sigma is a diamond. I did the same with the 85 1.8 vs 1.2. To me, it wasn't a fair comparison. I do a lot of low light shooting where the speed helped a ton. The 1.8 is an exceptional lens and I may buy one for those situations I don't want the weight or the potential for damage with the 1.2....but man, I'm glad I picked up the canonball. It's going to be an excellent weekend!

Take care and happy shooting...Sun in the forecast this weekend!

J

 

[epicwelshman]

Blah blah blah, Sigma vs. Nikon vs. Canon L-glass...

Whatever.

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 on my Nikon D40x and love it. I find it front focuses a touch at 2.8, but I'm not sure whether that's simply because of my three HUGE focus points on the D40x.

All in all, I love it.

 

[compuwar]

Blah blah blah, Sigma vs. Nikon vs. Canon L-glass...

Whatever.

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 on my Nikon D40x and love it. I find it front focuses a touch at 2.8, but I'm not sure whether that's simply because of my three HUGE focus points on the D40x.

All in all, I love it.

Manual focus tests should answer that question quite clearly. Sigma lenses typically aren't that difficult to adjust if you're not afraid of a screwdriver, but if it's in warranty they should fix it, and I'd recommend it since the D40x doesn't have microfocus adjustment- but I'll add that focus shouldn't have anything to do with aperture- it should miss by the same amount at any aperture it's just that the apparent plane of focus, rather than the actual plane of focus will appear larger (I'm not sure I could love a lens that doesn't hit focus, but I'm glad you're happy with yours.)

 

[JFreak]

it does seems sometimes, if it's not White with Red ring (or Nikkor), it is easily dismissed.

Oh, but Sigmas have GOLD ring (EX-series) and those are not dismissed !!

 

[JFreak]

Sigma 70-200 reaches maximum sharpness at f/11

Yep. And after that most digital bodies begin to suffer from diffraction so even if the lens got sharper the final image would not. The crazy give-me-more-megapixels marketing has lead to smaller apertures than f/11 have become less desirable option. Film was very different, but that was a decade ago.

Point being, if you want max sharpness without knowing the real specs of the lens, you should stick to f/8..10 with any given lens and just shoot. Low-light shooting is naturally a whole another story.

 

[JFreak]

If you never shoot wide, the Canon f/4 beats the 2.8 in IQ terms.

...and in weight
...and in price

But if you need to shoot wide, the slower lens fails.