Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Lens

[Flaming]

Hi all,


I was wondering if there is anyone out there who owns and/or uses this lens on a regular basis. I have been looking for a medium focal length zoom and that lens sounds like it has potential (as does the tamron) but Bryan's review really does not sound positive at all. I would be interested to hear any of your comments on this lens (and any other medium length lens).


Samuel

[Benjamin]

Get the Canon one. I'm sure anyone who can spend $800 on a Sigma can pay $1150 for the Canon. It is totally worth it in my opinion.

[Flaming]

Thanks for the opinion, but I really am interested in what the Sigma (and somewhat Tamron) owners think of their lenses. I would like to hear from you all. The biggest reason I want to hear from them is my brother's Sigma 150mm Macro is a great lens and it seems that Sigma should be able to make good lenses else where.

[soezin]

I'm interested in the opinion of those who have used it before as well. Here, in Thailand, Canon's f/2.8 non IS version costs about $1275 US (with 2 years warranty) while the Sigma costs around $750 US (and comes with 5 years warranty).


Thanks in advance.. [8-|]

[Flaming]

Well I guess no one owns this lens or at least no one cares. I was really hoping to get the opinion of others.

[elmo_2006]

This may not help or answer your question, but try www.pixel-peeper.com ("http://www.pixel-peeper.com) and search on the camera lens and the body to compare.


I was in the market for the Canon version, and I have been swayed to the Sigma 70-200 by the retailers, but decided with the Canon.


The only concern is that the Sigma does not have the OS and I'm a little concerned about the quality control, but you can get that with any company including Canon.


Hope this helps and good luck.

[Flaming]

Thanks for the comment. I tried out the site and did not really understand it. I have heard a lot of bad news about the Sigma and the Canon does not seem to have anyone really getting mad at the Canon. I have heard of some random bad Canon lenses, but generally they seem to have a really good set of lenses that are not let out till they have a good product.

[elmo_2006]

LOL....you should try searching the forums relating to softness on the infamous Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM lens. For the money being spent, there are plenty of high expectations including myself.


Canon does have some QC issues probably not as much as Sigma, but when you consider the price differences, once can't really complain! But alas, 700 or 2400, money is hard earned and QC should be top notch regardless.

[mattsartin]

All I know about the Sigma is what's in Bryan's review, which isn't favorable. I have a friend who bought the Tamron and returned it because the autofocus was unacceptably slow. I know this isn't what you're looking for, but I've used the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it was fantastic.

[Deva207]

I was using that Sigma, friend has it...


I dont like it


It has focus problem, it underfocus. bad bad thing...


Try to avoid that lens with Canon, I heard many times about this problem with Sigma on Canon

[elmo_2006]

Hi Deva207...


Is this the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Lens or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Lens, there are twoversions of thislens?


Thanks

[Deva207]

Hi Deva207...


Is this the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Lens or the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro Lens, there are twoversions of thislens?


Thanks
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





It was mark II. Last version. I used it on my 1000D and i could clearly see focus problems, my friend used it on his 450D and 5D II and he says its too soft. I say this for that particular lens, I cant say that all copies are like that, but like i wrote before I heard that this is not the first time it happens to Sigma lens and Canon bodies.

[elmo_2006]

Hi Deva207...


I was interested in knowing if it was the Mark II as the older version was questionable. I agree Sigma has some serious QC issues and that's too bad becasue they do make some great lenses.


Thanks

[Flaming]

Hey All,


Thanks for the replies. If many others come up with the same ideas I would say it is a good concusion to come to when I say that it is not a good lens. Well it was worth the thought if nothing else. Sigh. I guess I will be looking to see if I can get the cash together for one of the canons. Who knows maybe santa will be extra generous the year? Or maybe I will need to work longer hours. Sigh.


Samuel

[Benjamin]

Since last time I only left you with one sentence saying to go for the Canon and not much else, here I'll try give a little bit my opinion.


I personally have owned the Sigma 150/2.8 Macro lens and 50/1.4. I think both of them are fantastic lenses in terms of the optics. I sold my 150/2.8 after owning it for a year and my 50/1.4 was returned. However, the reason for the sale of 150 macro and return of 50/1.4 is not because they are not good optics. Here are the reasons why I did so and why many people are thinking in the same way.


1. The widely discussed autofocus issue - even if you don't get a copy that is miscalibrated, the focus is slow and it's not capable in low light despite the use of HSM.


2. Mechanically inferior to Canon or Nikon lenses - Sigma tend to break down more easily than Canon and Nikon lenses. My friends whoever owned a Sigma all have different stories about how they break down... And by searching online i found reliability is indeed an issue. It may not show in one or two years, but if you expect your lens to last for half a decade, watch out!


3. Sigma lenses depreciates more than Canon and Nikon lenses in the used market. I lost half of the value of my 150/2.8 when I was trying to sell it after using it for 1 year, because otherwise I can't make a sale. On the other hand, I just sold my Canon 24-70L and I made a $150 profit (lens price hike)!


4. Potential capability issues and warrant claim - As Bryan pointed out, Sigma lenses, as third party lenses, may not be guaranteed to support future Canon bodies. And if the Canon body produces a problem when being used with a Sigma lens, Canon may defer the warantee claim too.


5. Brand loyalty - Just imagine someone who will only use Canon lens with their Canon bodies. I have seem enough people just like this.


As far as I think, so many factors has to work together to make a great lens. If a lens is amazingly sharp while its focus is not accurate enough to take the advantage of its sharpness, it's useless. As always, I'm looking for the lenses that have the best integration of everything, not just one aspect itself.


Hopefully I made a point.


Ben

[Deva207]

Hi Deva207...


I was interested in knowing if it was the Mark II as the older version was questionable. I agree Sigma has some serious QC issues and that's too bad becasue they do make some great lenses.


Thanks
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>











Im not really sure that I understand your question, forgive me but my english is not that good. I come from Croatia. So, if you can make the question a lil bit simple.


I never used mark I lens, so i dont know how it acts.


But, I also have to say, there is a solution to focus problem with Sigma. Send it to recalibration. After that it should (must) work fine.

[elmo_2006]

Hi Dev207...


There are two versions of this lens, but I errored without reading the thread title, my apologies.

[Flaming]

Hey Guys,


Thanks for the replies. I guess I will not get this lens if I can afford it. Well take care.


Samuel