As expected, Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is rubbish

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Sep 13, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_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.
     
    Bruce, Sep 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 14/09/2010 9:36 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > On Sep 13, 1:31 pm, Bruce<> wrote:
    >> 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/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_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.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/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.
     
    Me, Sep 14, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    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.
     
    Mr. Strat, Sep 14, 2010
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
  2. Stephen Manaton

    Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Lens

    Stephen Manaton, May 24, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    334
    Pete D
    May 25, 2005
  3. Giovanni Azua
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    306
    hotchkisstrio
    Jun 6, 2005
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    368
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. Iraxl Enb

    D70 and Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6

    Iraxl Enb, Dec 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    332
    Guns/Zen4
    Dec 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page