Photography forum

by **Jason Walker** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:30 pm

Well would like to get the canon 70-200 F2.8 is L but just havn't got the funds for a £1500 lens at the min, however for the time being i've been thinking about the sigma 70-200 f2.8
looking mainly for weddings and portraits the sigma 120-400mm i use at the min for wildlfife shots e.t.c is just a little bit overkill for general use lol!!

Anyone used or got the sigma version that could offer a little advice on what it is like to use , and what results I can expect, i know it'll be nothing like the canon lens and it has no is/OS but thinking for the time being until i can afford to upgrade to the canon lens

Jay

by **bandit** » Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:05 pm

I had one for a while and found it perfectly good especially stopped down to f/4. Very good AF too, quiet and fast. Good value too. I'm sure Andy will be along to sing it's praises too. They don't hold there money too well though so expect a £200 hit when you sel it, or better still buy a used one.

This was shot at f/4 & 200mm

by **Andy B** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:47 am

yep... absolutey great value for money !!
I think most of the shots I posted in my recent wedding for taken with it outside.
Couldnt justify the extra £1000 for the Nikon

by **Kenny** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:27 pm

Thats a crisp shot Rich!!!! so whats the story about togging Nel McAndrew then??? and is that lens a good one on the D700 as it would be good replacement for my 70-300 APO DG

by **bandit** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:34 pm

Kenny wrote:Thats a crisp shot Rich!!!! so whats the story about togging Nel McAndrew then??? and is that lens a good one on the D700 as it would be good replacement for my 70-300 APO DG

it's a good lens Kenny, I don't quite trust it at f/2.8 though. if I had the cash I woul still buy the Nikon one, for the VR. And it is OK at f/2.8 too. Oh and it has full on weather seals too ;-)

by **Andy B** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:55 pm

Its bob on at F4 which I use it mostly on but even at 2.8 its hard to see where the extrar £1000 pounds goes. Better off buying a couple of good primes IMO

by **bandit** » Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:06 pm

Andy B wrote:Its bob on at F4 which I use it mostly on but even at 2.8 its hard to see where the extrar £1000 pounds goes. Better off buying a couple of good primes IMO

You have to try one to see I guess. The Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS was fantastic and worth every single cent. Perhaps I should have stayed with Canon..just for that lens :lol:

Photography forum

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Re: Sigma 70-200 f2.8 ??

Who is online