So, does anyone have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 macro?

[seenew]

I was looking at buying it as an alternative to the extremely pricey Canon variety. At first I thought, if I'm spending $900, I might as well spend the extra $300 to get the Canon. But then, I thought that I could use that $300 put it with some more cash, and get the 580 EX Speedlight (which I've been needing)

I've heard some very positive things about this lens, but I wanted the opinions of people here who own or have used it in the past.

So what's up, guys?

 

[JFreak]

I don't *have* this lens, but as I have been lusting to buy one for some time I have also been testing this lens few times; in fact, lastly just two days ago. It's a remarkably good lens and really on par with the non-IS Canon 70-200 f/2.8L glass. Only cheaper because this lens does not give you bragging rights.

Another nice option would be to buy Canon 200mm f/2.8L prime and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8EX zoom. Those too are great lenses but as always two will cost more than one.

 

[Abstract]

It's supposed to be around par with the Canon and Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8, which are both supposed to be great. However, it doesn't have shake reduction. If you plan on using it mainly on well-lit afternoons, then you may be OK with that. It would also be great if you use it with a monopod or something.

However, I'm different. I don't think I would ever buy a 70-200 mm lens without VR or OS from Nikon or Sigma. I would just wait until I have enough money for Nikon version with VR, or a Sigma version with OS (if one is ever released). If it's not possible, I just won't buy it.

If I'm going to spend so much money, I'd rather buy something that's exactly what I want rather than something that's sort of what I want, but not exactly.

 

[ezpk69]

Sorry to completely not answer your question, but...

Yes, it is a lens I've looked at quite a bit, but that's not why I'm replying; Yesterday marked the end of a customer service story that I'm afraid Canon would have trouble matching.

To make a long story short, yesterday morning I received from Sigma (at no charge, except the expedited shipping I'd requested) a brand new 24-70mm f2.8 to replace one I'd bought used on ebay two years ago which had had persistent AF problems since I switched to a 20D last year.

No warranty, no paperwork, no service charge, no questions asked. They couldn't fix it, so they gave me a new one.

Once upon another lifetime ago, I spent several years working retail, where I observed that ALL brands have problems, even lemons - and the safest place to put your money is with the people who take responsibility for their mistakes instead of insisting they don't make any.

If Canon could compete on a customer service level, it would almost be a no-brainer; after all, this focal length and f-stop is one place where the two companies are closest in price. But I'm rambling. All I wanted to say is Sigma has taken good care of me. Canon's been fair, so far, but I've also been lucky not to have to ask for any big favors from them.

 

[seenew]

It's supposed to be around par with the Canon and Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8, which are both supposed to be great. However, it doesn't have shake reduction. If you plan on using it mainly on well-lit afternoons, then you may be OK with that. It would also be great if you use it with a monopod or something.

However, I'm different. I don't think I would ever buy a 70-200 mm lens without VR or OS from Nikon or Sigma. I would just wait until I have enough money for Nikon version with VR, or a Sigma version with OS (if one is ever released). If it's not possible, I just won't buy it.

If I'm going to spend so much money, I'd rather buy something that's exactly what I want rather than something that's sort of what I want, but not exactly.

$900 is a lot, but it's far less than the $2000 the Canon IS version costs. I take very good care of my lenses, and have sold some before to fund other purchases (like this one), and I think if I ever feel the need and have the extra cash, I could just sell this Sigma and get the Canon.
But the IS isn't a huge thing for me, I usually shoot outside.

 

[jlcharles]

After reading reviews on the Sigma on fredmiranda, I figured that I should just spend the extra money and get the Canon. I figured the prices were so close, why not. Now, if and when I get the 24-70, I'm getting the Sigma. The Canon is better than the Sigma, but not 4x better.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

I've been using the the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM Macro on a Nikon for about a year & I am very pleased with it, See if you can rent one for a few days, i'm sure those that own or have owned this Lens are and have been very happy with it,Image quality is bang on, and it's very sharp, But don't buy without trying first, it is a lot of money, But the upside is Sigma customer service is very good should you have any problems (not that you should) and compared to the price of Nikon & Canons 70-200mm it's a bargain.

 

[Abstract]

After reading reviews on the Sigma on fredmiranda, I figured that I should just spend the extra money and get the Canon. I figured the prices were so close, why not. Now, if and when I get the 24-70, I'm getting the Sigma. The Canon is better than the Sigma, but not 4x better.

I'm not even sure of the Canon is $100 better than the Sigma. Hell, the Tamron 28-75 mm is likely better than the other two lenses (in terms of image quality only). Too bad it's not wide enough to fill my requirement for a general, all purpose lens.

I own the Sigma 24-70 mm f2.8 because it's wider than the Tamron.

 

[jlcharles]

I don't know. I've rented the Canon quite a few times and the images it produces are fantastic. But like I said, I don't think they're 4x better than the sigma. I've never used the Sigma or Tamron, so I can't personally compare. I can only go by reviews and I think theres a wide enough cross section on fredmiranda to say that the canon is better. With the Tamron edging out the Sigma by a hair, but I wouldn't buy the Tamron since it isn't wide enough as you said.

 

[840quadra]

It's supposed to be around par with the Canon and Nikon 70-200 mm f/2.8, which are both supposed to be great. However, it doesn't have shake reduction. If you plan on using it mainly on well-lit afternoons, then you may be OK with that. It would also be great if you use it with a monopod or something.

However, I'm different. I don't think I would ever buy a 70-200 mm lens without VR or OS from Nikon or Sigma. I would just wait until I have enough money for Nikon version with VR, or a Sigma version with OS (if one is ever released). If it's not possible, I just won't buy it.

If I'm going to spend so much money, I'd rather buy something that's exactly what I want rather than something that's sort of what I want, but not exactly.

If you are doing sports photography (as I do), paying for IS, VR or OS is a complete misuse of cash. They will do nothing to get rid of motion blur of your fast moving object.

On the Canon side of the fence (since that is what this user has), with less elements and components the non IS Canon version is lighter, and some say sharper overall.

But neither of our opinions are valid, as we don't know how steady of a hand the OP has, or exactly what they intend to shoot.

 

[seenew]

Well, I've got a pretty steady hand, usually able to shoot at 1/30 or maybe a little slower, even, and get usable results. I don't shoot sports, except when I go see my girlfriend ride horses.
to get an idea of what I shoot: http://seenew.deviantart.com/gallery

I'm mainly interested in this lens because I'm shooting a friend's wedding in November.