«

What is the POINT of buying an f2.8 zoom if the quality AT f2.8 is so
bad you have to stop it down? You might as well save $800, buy an
f4.0 instead. You'll save weight as well.

http://dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigm..._c16/page6.asp

RichA <> wrote:

>What is the POINT of buying an f2.8 zoom if the quality AT f2.8 is so
>bad you have to stop it down? You might as well save $800, buy an
>f4.0 instead. You'll save weight as well.
>
>http://dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigm..._c16/page6.asp


But according to the review you linked to, it isn't "rubbish". Even
when used wide open, it is sharp in the centre. The edges are unsharp
until you've stopped down, but that was also true of the original
version of the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.

It also has minimal CA, fast and accurate AF and very effective image
stabilisation. Bearing in mind the (likely) reasonable street price
for this lens, what's not to like - apart from the brand name?

It's pointless telling people who cannot afford a Canon or Nikon pro
f/2.8 zoom that the Sigma isn't as good. If they had the money, they
would buy a Canon or Nikon pro f/2.8 zoom.

As for your "$800 saving", Nikon users don't yet have an f/4 option,
and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is more like $400 cheaper than the
reviewed Sigma f/2.8. So your "$800 saving" for choosing an f/4 lens
is something of an illusion, although I agree that Canon DSLR users
would probably find the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS a far better choice.
The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is also worth considering, although it lacks
any form of stabilisation.

On 14/09/2010 9:36 a.m., RichA wrote:
> On Sep 13, 1:31 pm, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What is the POINT of buying an f2.8 zoom if the quality AT f2.8 is so
>>> bad you have to stop it down? You might as well save $800, buy an
>>> f4.0 instead. You'll save weight as well.
>>
>>> http://dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigm..._c16/page6.asp
>>
>> But according to the review you linked to, it isn't "rubbish". Even
>> when used wide open, it is sharp in the centre.
>
> The VERY centre. Out a few degrees out and sharpness drops off
> precipitously. Plus, $1800 U.S., maybe $1500 street, I'd rather have
> the older Nikons.

The old 80-200, still available new for about US$1,000 isn't too bad at
f2.8/200mm:
http://commondatastorage.googleapis....l/34275471.jpg
You can see the coma/sa effect on OOF areas off centre-frame even on DX,
but despite not being quite as good as the 70-200s at f2.8/200mm, it's
certainly usable at that setting, and perfectly fine at shorter focal
lengths at f2.8 for most uses.

The Sigma probably isn't as bad as you make out, but the price is (IMO)
crazy. Sigma's price point for consideration for me is when they offer
something with similar spec at half OEM maker's price, and even then be
very selective.

In article
<579cc933-4459-4570-a2d2->,
RichA <> wrote:

> What is the POINT of buying an f2.8 zoom if the quality AT f2.8 is so
> bad you have to stop it down? You might as well save $800, buy an
> f4.0 instead. You'll save weight as well.

What did you expect? Plus, it's Sigma.