DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Should I buy the Sigma 70-200 F2.8??
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/10/2010 09:27:55 AM · #1
Apologies for sort of re-creating a previous thread of mine, but I still need help making a decsion.

Recently purchased a Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 along with my K20D, but am finding it a little soft at the long end. So, am considering trading it on something a little better quality. Was keen on the Tamron 70-200 F2.8, which has a great reputation for IQ, but a crap reputation for autofocus. Because I'll use the lens partly for sports, the AF issue concerns me. The other Pentax-mount choice in a similar price range is the Sigma Af 70-200mm F2.8 Ex Dg II. It has a reputation for good AF, but being a bit soft at the long end. I don't really need F2.8 very often for what I shoot, but I do value sharp images. So, here's my question:

Am I really going to notice an appreciable difference between my Sigma 70-300 and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8? If not, what else should I be looking at. I can't go any shorter than 200mm, and can't spend any more than about AUD1,000 (USD1,000 at current exchange rates). Help me out here people.....please...

Qiki
12/10/2010 09:47:25 AM · #2
I have the Tamron 70-200mm and bought it to shoot in low light for my daughters dance programs. It works well for me. The only draw back it I have to shoot from the back of the auditorium since the 70mm really is 105mm.

These were with my Nikon D40x at 2.8 at ISO 1600+ at 1/200 Neat Image'd on darker ones to reduce grain.

Here are some examples Nutcracker 2010
12/10/2010 10:05:23 AM · #3
Originally posted by vtruan:

I have the Tamron 70-200mm and bought it to shoot in low light for my daughters dance programs. It works well for me. The only draw back it I have to shoot from the back of the auditorium since the 70mm really is 105mm.

These were with my Nikon D40x at 2.8 at ISO 1600+ at 1/200 Neat Image'd on darker ones to reduce grain.

Here are some examples Nutcracker 2010


Thanks for the input Van. You have some nice images there. So, how do you find the AF on your Tamron? Every review I have read has been scathing about this. Also, how long have you had your Tammy? I ask because the reviews all seem to be 1-2 years old and I believe the lens may have been updated fairly recently?
Q.
12/10/2010 10:13:47 AM · #4
I own 2 of them, one for my Olympus and one for the Nikon. Is it as good as the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8, no probably not, but I honestly couldn't live without mine..I love it..

12/10/2010 10:24:45 AM · #5
That tends to be the case with 3rd party lenses. They can match up optically most the time, but where they fall short compared to system lenses form the camera manufacturer is usually in build quality (although not all that much) and in AF performance.

They have to be less expensive for a reason. I don't know if Pentax offers a lens in the 70-200 2.8 range, but if they do, it will be more expensive and focus faster than the Tamron or the Sigma.

I looked on Pentax's web site, I don't see a lens in this range. They do have a fixed focal length 200mm 2.8 that B&H sells for just under $1000. It is internal focus, my guess is it would be a great performer in optics and AF.
12/10/2010 10:26:00 AM · #6
Originally posted by Rmac:

I own 2 of them, one for my Olympus and one for the Nikon. Is it as good as the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8, no probably not, but I honestly couldn't live without mine..I love it..


I was just checking out some of your shots with it on the lens page. Some great images. So, would you agree with the reviews I've read that say it's soft around 200mm? This is very relevant to me, because I'd be using at 200mm pretty much all the time when doing sports.
12/10/2010 10:28:49 AM · #7
Originally posted by scarbrd:

That tends to be the case with 3rd party lenses. They can match up optically most the time, but where they fall short compared to system lenses form the camera manufacturer is usually in build quality (although not all that much) and in AF performance.

They have to be less expensive for a reason. I don't know if Pentax offers a lens in the 70-200 2.8 range, but if they do, it will be more expensive and focus faster than the Tamron or the Sigma.

I looked on Pentax's web site, I don't see a lens in this range. They do have a fixed focal length 200mm 2.8 that B&H sells for just under $1000. It is internal focus, my guess is it would be a great performer in optics and AF.


I had actually considered the Pentax 200mm prime, but that would leave me with nothing in my bag between 70mm and 200mm. That's a mighty big gap. The Pentax 60-250 F4 is another lens that has had rave reviews, but it's double the price. :(
12/10/2010 10:45:58 AM · #8
Originally posted by Qiki:

because I'd be using at 200mm pretty much all the time ...


So, why not buy a prime lens then? If you want something that works well, primes are usually a safe bet..
12/10/2010 10:51:29 AM · #9
Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by Qiki:

because I'd be using at 200mm pretty much all the time ...


So, why not buy a prime lens then? If you want something that works well, primes are usually a safe bet..


Good advice. You could then buy a less expesive zoom (not 2.8) to fill the gap.
12/10/2010 11:04:16 AM · #10
Yeah, maybe a prime is the way to go. I guess I was just trying to avoid spending too much. It's hard to find the Pentax 200mm F2.8 here for much less than $1,500. Then I'd want to purchase something else to fill that gap between 70 and 200mm.
12/10/2010 11:36:59 AM · #11
Originally posted by Qiki:

Thanks for the input Van. You have some nice images there. So, how do you find the AF on your Tamron? Every review I have read has been scathing about this. Also, how long have you had your Tammy? I ask because the reviews all seem to be 1-2 years old and I believe the lens may have been updated fairly recently?
Q.


I bought about a year ago.
12/10/2010 12:41:22 PM · #12
Originally posted by Qiki:

Originally posted by Rmac:

I own 2 of them, one for my Olympus and one for the Nikon. Is it as good as the Nikon or Canon 70-200 f/2.8, no probably not, but I honestly couldn't live without mine..I love it..


I was just checking out some of your shots with it on the lens page. Some great images. So, would you agree with the reviews I've read that say it's soft around 200mm? This is very relevant to me, because I'd be using at 200mm pretty much all the time when doing sports.


I do a lot of rodeo photography, and the 70-200 is the lens I use the most. Like I said before, it's not equal to the Nikon or Canon in sharpness, but in my honest opinion it's plenty sharp for sports or wildlife photography at all focal lengths. I would say that most of my shots on here that were shot with that lens were shot at or near 200mm..
12/10/2010 05:56:39 PM · #13
Thanks vtruan and Rmac. I'm guess I'm still a little unsure exactly if/why I should expect better images from the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 than the 70-300 APO. Let's say I'm shooting at 200mm, F8, 1/750, ISO 200 (fairly typical settings for shooting kayaking on a sunny day). Is the F2.8 going to give me better results or is it only going to come in to it's own it situations like low light when I really need to use F2.8?
12/10/2010 06:14:55 PM · #14
Originally posted by Qiki:

Thanks vtruan and Rmac. I'm guess I'm still a little unsure exactly if/why I should expect better images from the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 than the 70-300 APO. Let's say I'm shooting at 200mm, F8, 1/750, ISO 200 (fairly typical settings for shooting kayaking on a sunny day). Is the F2.8 going to give me better results or is it only going to come in to it's own it situations like low light when I really need to use F2.8?


I use my 15-270mm or my 70-300 Tamerons for kayak action shots. On cloudy days, 2.8 is necessary.

kayak shots

Message edited by author 2010-12-11 14:40:04.
12/10/2010 06:15:09 PM · #15
Originally posted by Qiki:

Thanks vtruan and Rmac. I'm guess I'm still a little unsure exactly if/why I should expect better images from the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 than the 70-300 APO. Let's say I'm shooting at 200mm, F8, 1/750, ISO 200 (fairly typical settings for shooting kayaking on a sunny day). Is the F2.8 going to give me better results or is it only going to come in to it's own it situations like low light when I really need to use F2.8?


If your not shooting in low light then the f/2.8 may not have any advantages. I'm not familiar with the 70-300, but at f/8.0 the Sigma 70-200 is pretty dang sharp. Plus there is always the outside chance it may be cloudy..
12/10/2010 06:22:38 PM · #16
Originally posted by vtruan:

I use my 15-270mm or my 70-300 Tamerons for kayak action shots. On sunny days, 2.8 is necessary.

kayak shots


Sorry I'm confused - you do use F2.8 on sunny days or you don't? Gotta go to work now, but I'll check your response a little later. Thanks again.
12/10/2010 07:01:37 PM · #17
Originally posted by Qiki:

Originally posted by vtruan:

I use my 15-270mm or my 70-300 Tamerons for kayak action shots. On sunny days, 2.8 is necessary.

kayak shots


Sorry I'm confused - you do use F2.8 on sunny days or you don't? Gotta go to work now, but I'll check your response a little later. Thanks again.


I use my 2.8 mostly for low light indoors, macro, cloudy day wildlife, and lightning/dark storms.
12/10/2010 09:14:18 PM · #18
At the risk of labouring a point, I'd still like to know whether anyone believes there is anything inherently better about the F2.8 lens, outside of the obvious advantages in low light. In bright conditions, will I get better images than with the 70-300 APO? I don't want to drop an extra $600-700 on the F2.8 only to discover the images are no better than with my old lens.
12/10/2010 09:36:04 PM · #19
FWIW, I love my Sigma 70-200 2.8 and keep it in my bag at all times. I find myself using it far more often than I originally anticipated. It was far less expensive than the Canon version, but the build quality is there and I am please with the shots I get...(with the exception of the subject matter, composition, etc, lol) Mine was purchased when this lens first came out, so I'm sure it's even better now.
12/10/2010 10:14:50 PM · #20
Originally posted by Qiki:

At the risk of labouring a point, I'd still like to know whether anyone believes there is anything inherently better about the F2.8 lens, outside of the obvious advantages in low light. In bright conditions, will I get better images than with the 70-300 APO? I don't want to drop an extra $600-700 on the F2.8 only to discover the images are no better than with my old lens.


As long as it is APO glass then anything shot at say, F8 will look the same regardless of the widest aperture of the lens. The focusing may be faster since it has more light coming through the lens. The APO glass (or L glass, or ED glass) is designed to be sharp even if using the widest aperture, F2.8 in your case. But stopped down, any decent lens will perform well.

You have to decide how often you need to shoot at F2.8 to justify the higher cost. With sports action it will be more often than you think.

The wider aperture will also be useful in shooting portraits. You will be able to blur the background more than with an F4.0 lens. This makes the subject standout better against the background and gives you the nice bokeh effect.
12/10/2010 10:26:23 PM · #21
Thanks to all. I think you've convinced me. I'm off to have a look at the Sigma 2.8. :)
12/10/2010 10:40:43 PM · #22
Originally posted by Qiki:

At the risk of labouring a point, I'd still like to know whether anyone believes there is anything inherently better about the F2.8 lens, outside of the obvious advantages in low light. In bright conditions, will I get better images than with the 70-300 APO? I don't want to drop an extra $600-700 on the F2.8 only to discover the images are no better than with my old lens.


A 2.8 lens has the advantage of usually being able to be used with extenders whilst maintaining autofocus and a reasonable amount of shutter speed..
12/11/2010 01:47:11 AM · #23
Decided to jump in and purchase the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 II APO EX DG Macro HSM. :)

Here's the first couple of pics, both taken at F2.8 and 200mm. The shot of Molly-dog is hardly cropped at all as I was up close, whereas the cricket shot is cropped 50% as I was around 70m away from the action. The images seem OK in terms of IQ and the bokeh is pleasant enough.





I can certainly see my monopod getting some use during long session with this lens though, as it's heavier than anything I've used previously. Thanks again to all who helped my decision making process.

Message edited by author 2010-12-11 01:47:49.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:47:11 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:47:11 AM EDT.