| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2008 05:29:37 PM · #1 |
I had the 70-200 on backorder but I just canceled it, it was taking too long, so now I am searching for the BEST Sigma APO zoom lens. I don't care about the Nikon VR $2k lenses.. just Sigma APO. I have the 1.4x APO teleconverter ready to go for a lens.. I would be needing it for indoor sports and birding.
Here's my take on the Sigma APO's:
70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO - cheap, not EX, no OS (not for me)
70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM APO - right price range, great aperture, no OS (around $700 on ebay new) (maybe)
120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG IF HSM APO - outta my price range, no OS, 2.8 is good (not for me)
120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO - around my price range, not EX so does that mean not as good?, has OS but a 4-5.6 aperture (around $850 on ebay new) (maybe)
80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG OS APO - around my price range, OS, but a 4-5.6 aperture (around $800 used) (maybe)
150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO - tad above my price range, has OS but 5-6.3 aperture, might be too heavy for me (around $1000 on ebay new) (Big maybe)
200-500mm F2.8/400-1000mm EX DG APO - had to include this for laughs. its like $30k and looks like a scud missile. (not for me)
In a perfect world I would have around a long range lens with OS and 2.8 aperture, for under a grand.. but this ain't a perfect world. So based on the lenses APO lenses available by Sigma, which is best lens? Which would you pick, OS or 2.8? If YOU had to choose, which one would you pick?
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 05:37:12 PM · #2 |
I had the 80-400, although in Canon flavor. I found the lens to be of excellent build quality, was very sharp, and had excellent image quality. What I found lacking was the f5.6, which had too much depth of field for sports, and it wasn't very fast to focus.
I sold that lens to help fund a purchase of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS version). Best move I made. The wider aperture allows for more blurred backgrounds, and faster shutter speeds. Do I need IS? absolutely not! for sports, your shutter speed is going to be high anyway, even if you need to bump up ISO. You need to stop the action, so the need for IS is not there. And the f2.8 allows me to shoot indoors, where I had no chance to do that with the f5.6 lens.
my bottom line recommendation - if you don't need the 400mm focal length, go f2.8 (unless you are rich and can afford a 400 f2.8 lens!!).
if you need the longer focal length and can't afford fast glass, then this lens might work. But remember the limitations - you won't be shooting indoors. The birding will probably work since you'll be outside. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 05:44:01 PM · #3 |
| I got berated just recently in another thread for saying its a great lens, but I have the 70-200 f2.8 II APO EX DG Macro. Love it to death. Great lens. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 06:22:11 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by amathiasphoto:
I got berated just recently in another thread for saying its a great lens, but I have the 70-200 f2.8 II APO EX DG Macro. Love it to death. Great lens. |
Who in the world berated your for saying that? Whomever it is was out of line, because that is a great lens. I have one as well and am very impressed with it. It's just as good as the Canon L version (although the Canon snobs hate hearing that).
To the OP: I'd recommend the 70-200mm still. If you're fed up waiting for the Sigma version, what about the Tamron version? It's only been out a few months and the one review I said claimed it might be even a hair better than the Sigma. At any rate, I trust Tamron and if I didn't already have a Sigma, I'd buy one from them. I think your teleconverter would still work, so that's not an issue.
Edit to add - for shooting indoor sports, you don't want anything less than f/2.8. Even f/4 will slow you down too much, unless you've got strobes you can use.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 18:23:21.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 06:26:15 PM · #5 |
| Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 EX IF HSM APO ? |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 06:39:22 PM · #6 |
| Absolutely love my Sigma 70-200! Great lens!! |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 06:42:46 PM · #7 |
| My next lens purchase will probably be the Sigma 70-200 as it's finally available for Pentax k-mount. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 06:47:32 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
My next lens purchase will probably be the Sigma 70-200 as it's finally available for Pentax k-mount. |
Have you seen the new Tamron 70-200 2.8? I've read reviews saying it is optically superior to the Sigma. The big concerns seem to be slow (and loud) focusing and a rather clunky way of handling the MF/AF switch.
I am hoping to try them out before deciding on one or the other- although my big hope is that Pentax has some nice fast lenses coming out at Photokina. But, no rumors on new lenses- just a couple of bodies.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:25:04 PM · #9 |
Was able to shoot multiple shots of this guy with the 70-200 and the quiet lens did not scare him. (I think my shoes did though, lol) It's easy to handle, too.
 |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:36:03 PM · #10 |
I hv the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO and the Sigma 150-500mm OS APO. Both are excellent lenses. At equivalent ranges the 70-200mm is definitely sharper and IMO holds its own against the Nikkor lenses. The only minor niggle I have is the reds come out a little oversaturate when used with my D3 (easily cured in PP).
I also own the Nikkor 80-400mm VR and the Sigma 150-500mm OS though much heavier and bigger is very comparable. The sharpness of the Sigma is more than acceptable but the Nikkor is still sharper (it is very very sharp). The AF & OS performance is better than the nikkor. I bought the Sigma because I wanted to use it with my Sigma 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. The OS is so good that even when used with the 1.4x @700mm) , one can shoot hand-held at shutter speeds of 1/200s with a very good hit rate (my experience is about 60%) , oh and the weight helps.
One thing you may want to note, is that when you ue the converters with the Sigma 150-500 , OS works but AF does not. The lens has to be manually focused so it does take some practice!!
I use a D3 , so I pick OS as more important than a fast F2.8 , but in general , I would recommend going for the faster glass.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 19:42:03. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:41:12 PM · #11 |
Dana - your going to end up compromising if you want one lens to do both indoor sports and outdoor bird photography. For indoor sports a fast lens is a must. You do not need OS (VR) as the subjects will be moving anyway. So a Sigma 70-200 or a Nikon 80-200 2.8 would be good choices. For birding you need all the reach you can afford. An 80-400 is a decent start and OS (VR) is helpful as many shots the subject will be stationary.
Good luck in your quest.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 19:42:09. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 07:46:59 PM · #12 |
a pal of mine picked up a used 70-200 f2.8 from ebay and used it with a sigma 2x converter on his 1dmkII mostly for birding. he told me it had back focusing issues (and also that it was too short for birding even with the converter) and sold it to get a 100-300mm f/4.0 EX IF HSM APO instead. i'll ask him if he likes it better.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 08:57:49 PM · #13 |
 Alain has done quite well with this lens. I have it in the Sony/Minolta version and I'm quite pleased with it...carry it with me nearly everyday (the range is great on the road for that quick shot and no time to swap a lens out).
 Judi has had a decent run with it also in the Canon flavor.
Message edited by author 2008-09-16 20:58:05.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:34:06 PM · #14 |
First of all, thanks for all the replies!!!
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
for shooting indoor sports, you don't want anything less than f/2.8. Even f/4 will slow you down too much, unless you've got strobes you can use. |
My current lens, the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 for Nikon with my SB-600 flash, in a gym, photographing wrestling, has been "okay". I only have one more year of wrestling to cover (my twins graduate this year) and then they are off to college, where I would go to a couple matches a year.. I'm not shooting indoor sports for newspapers or anything... I would say the lens I need is for birding, and it can also be used for wrestling if its better than what I currently use, and it will be. You can check out my wrestling stuff here (scroll down a b it for the better shots).
Originally posted by faidoi:
Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 EX IF HSM APO ? |
I don't have that listed, but it is in my price range...
Originally posted by andrewt:
....I have the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO and the Sigma 150-500mm OS APO. Both are excellent lenses.... One thing you may want to note, is that when you use the converters with the Sigma 150-500, OS works but AF does not. The lens has to be manually focused so it does take some practice!! |
I really appreciate that nugget of information. I did not know the Bigma had to be manually focused with the tc's on.. thats a deal breaker on that lens. The weight was already making me skeptical, but I am definitely not advanced enough at birding to manually focus my shots, yet. But I dearly love the links to Alain and Judi that glad2badad posted for me... those made me want the lens, then I read what you said about MF... ugh!! I hate decisions...
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Dana - your going to end up compromising if you want one lens to do both indoor sports and outdoor bird photography. For indoor sports a fast lens is a must. You do not need OS (VR) as the subjects will be moving anyway. So a Sigma 70-200 or a Nikon 80-200 2.8 would be good choices. For birding you need all the reach you can afford. An 80-400 is a decent start and OS (VR) is helpful as many shots the subject will be stationary. Good luck in your quest. |
Thanks for this advice. So you don't think the 80-400 would do in a pinch for just photographing my kids wrestling? considering what I said above about the lens I Have been using? As I said, I've realized my primary purchase goal is for birding and wrestling second. Would the 80-400 still have AF with the TC? Also would the 80-400 be "okay" for wrestling shots using my new SB-800 with a telegrid telephoto flash extender??
I hope that knowing more info you guys can help me narrow it down.... please :)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2008 11:59:38 PM · #15 |
Would you need the TC at 500mm? :-) |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:06:15 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I really appreciate that nugget of information. I did not know the Bigma had to be manually focused with the tc's on.. thats a deal breaker on that lens. The weight was already making me skeptical, but I am definitely not advanced enough at birding to manually focus my shots, yet. |
I'm able to use the Bigma (50-500mm) with a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with autofocus outside, but if you plan to use it indoor you definitely have to manual focus. When used with a Sigma 2X teleconverter you must focus manually.
The Bigma is my outdoor event/parade lens and if I purchase the Sigma 70-200mm it would be on one of my cameras for indoor type events which I plan to do more of next year.
Message edited by author 2008-09-17 00:11:03. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:07:42 AM · #17 |
| I just did a little reading... so I can not use my 1.4x TC with any OS lens and still have AF. That Sucks. I need OS for birding and I need the extra focal length no matter what lens I get.. I could buy the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II (on my D300 DX it would be 300mm), then add the 1.4x TC and that makes it a 420mm lens. Correct? Is this not enough for amature birding with a tripod/monopod? and I could still use the lens in the gym without the TC for wrestling? |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:13:17 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I'm able to use the Bigma (50-500mm) with a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter with autofocus outside, but if you plan to use it indoor you definitely have to manual focus. When used with a Sigma 2X teleconverter you must focus manually. |
wow, I was told I HAD to use the Sigma TC for an APO lens, specifically. I never knew I could use a Tamron. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:13:54 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
I just did a little reading... so I can not use my 1.4x TC with any OS lens and still have AF. That Sucks. I need OS for birding and I need the extra focal length no matter what lens I get.. I could buy the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II (on my D300 DX it would be 300mm), then add the 1.4x TC and that makes it a 420mm lens. Correct? Is this not enough for amature birding with a tripod/monopod? and I could still use the lens in the gym without the TC for wrestling? |
That sounds like a reasonable plan. :-)
Of course looking at it that way, the 500 becomes what...750 without the TC and 1050 with the TC? :-P |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:55:08 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Of course looking at it that way, the 500 becomes what...750 without the TC and 1050 with the TC? :-P |
You are slowly selling me on this lens LOL How darn heavy is it really? with my D300. I think my ballhead only holds around 6-7 lbs. Also, the Bigma doesn't have OS either right? I love the focal range, the f4 is "okay" for gym use, the price maxes my budget, but I think its down to these two now.
50-500mm or 70-200mm ?? |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 06:14:02 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Would you need the TC at 500mm? :-) |
I'm with Barry here, I do have a TC but I never felt that I had to use it with the Bigma.
I really love the Bigma, when I do wildlife picture, I mostly use this lens. The built quality is excellent. But you have to be aware that it's not a very fast lens. I always use it with a monopod, it's hard to get very sharp pictures when you use it handheld, but a monopod helps a lot. The monopod also makes it easier to carry around (I'm often carrying it on my shoulder, just like my profile pic)
When I bought it, I had to choose between this lens and a 70-200 f/2.8. So far, I think that I made the right choice and I don't have any regrets but I'm still considering getting a 70-200 eventually, but only after I get a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes. :)
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 10:51:20 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by aerogurl:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Of course looking at it that way, the 500 becomes what...750 without the TC and 1050 with the TC? :-P |
You are slowly selling me on this lens LOL How darn heavy is it really? with my D300. I think my ballhead only holds around 6-7 lbs. Also, the Bigma doesn't have OS either right? I love the focal range, the f4 is "okay" for gym use, the price maxes my budget, but I think its down to these two now.
50-500mm or 70-200mm ?? |
If you are taking photos in the gym on a frequent basis I wouldn't go with the 50-500. It's not fast enough in low light situations. The f4 is where it starts...diminishing to 6.3 at 500mm. I've been very happy with it for outdoor daylight sports, and Judi has captured some great rodeo action shots with hers.
Regarding weight, it weighs right around 4lbs, which should keep you in check for the range you mention on your ballhead. The tripod collar helps to distribute the weight evenly.
Personally - The 70-200 is a great range to have; combined with the 1.4x TC you should have some good flexibility. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 11:09:05 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by amathiasphoto:
I got berated just recently in another thread for saying its a great lens, but I have the 70-200 f2.8 II APO EX DG Macro. Love it to death. Great lens. |
Who in the world berated your for saying that? Whomever it is was out of line, because that is a great lens. I have one as well and am very impressed with it. It's just as good as the Canon L version (although the Canon snobs hate hearing that).
|
It was I. I had the temerity to question the assertion that it focussed clearly quicker than the Canon version. This seems to have been taken to be an attack on the lens and Sigma lenses in general, when it most definitely wasn't. I would heartily recommend the Sigma 70-200 out of the lenses listed by the OP, especially considering that the 120-300 is out of the price range (reach is good IMO). The 2.8 lenses should work really well with the TC and can be used without to keep a reasonably fast shutter speed indoors.
I've heard from a user of the 70-200 Sigma that it hunts more in low light than the Canon version, but I can't really see how this can be.
For sports etc, I can't see myself recommending the 80-400. Mine was as sharp, easily, as the Canon 100-400, but focussing was about as fast-moving as the average glacier. Missed a lot of 'grab' shots that I would have liked to have got close to getting. In fact, for indoor sports, I'd have to go with the majority and recommend the fastest lens possible.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 11:35:59 AM · #24 |
I have the first generation Sigma "Bigma" and I have to say that I am VERY pleased with it.
I've lugged around a Canon 400mm f/2.8L non-IS for a half day, shooting hand-held, and the 4.1lbs of the Sigma is nothing by comparison - it's also less than half the price too. The EX APO RF HSM is no longer made and was replaced by the EX DG HSM version. New, both are in the $1,000-1,200 range, and a good used one will set you back around $700.
 (500mm)
 (500mm)
 (500mm)
 (500mm "macro")
 (500mm)
 (500mm)
 (500mm)
These were my tests when I first got it, taking a click at
50mm, then zooming in at 500mm, unedited, resized only:
 (50mm)
 (500mm)
 (50mm)
 (500mm)
There is nothing that can touch it in it's price range and focal length. Nothing.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 12:38:06 PM · #25 |
| So this lens would give me 100 to 1000mm @f4 with my E3. hmmm Wow! My mind is set on the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II first but this may be my next purchase. It's the Sigma or the Oly 90-250 @ 6,000 dollars. Easy choice to me. ;] |
|
