File :-(, x, )
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM (Nikon) Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
Hi /p/,

I'm on a budget and need a 70-200mm lens for some contract work. Does anyone own this lens, and if so, what are your opinions?

I obviously would have gone with the Nikkor glass, but like I said, I'm on a budget.
>> Anonymous
inferior build quality and focusing issues (which shouldn't be a problem if it has a warranty).

Get it, faggit.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
It really sucks.

Get a used 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor.
>> Anonymous
You can get a used 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor (non-D version) for $500 pretty easily, it would be a better lens than the sigma.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>175423
Ebay prices (new)

Sigma 70-200 F2.8
£399.99 + £50(p&p) = £549.99
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-70-200mm-f-2-8-II-APO-DG-MACRO-70-200-f2-8-Nikon_W0QQitemZ330231459311QQ
ihZ014QQcategoryZ30070QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Nikon 80-200 F2.8
£459.99 + £52.99 = £512.98
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-80-200mm-f-2-8-D-ED-Zoom-AF-Lens-80-200-f2-8-NEW_W0QQitemZ110248849123QQ
ihZ001QQcategoryZ3343QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Conclusion:
Both brand new from far-away countries, with huge postage costs
Nikon is £37 cheaper.
which is like.. ~$70?
>> Anonymous
>>175445
Is this that new fangled fuzzy math?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>175445
>£399.99 + £50(p&p) = £549.99
Mental note: Don't hire Martin to do my accounting.
>> Anonymous
>>175454

The fat joke you deleted was better.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>175455
Yeah. Unfortunately, after posting it, I realized that he'd *added* 100 pounds, not *lost* it. Which made the joke lamer.

(You should not hire me to be your accountant either)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 (20060914.r.77) WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2007:05:02 16:50:24Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height302
>> Anonymous
>>175457
superman failed?
>> Anonymous
>>175459
Even superman fucks up sometimes, 20 x 16 =320 x 10 = 3,200
>> Anonymous
>>175457
Mathematically he's right, but statistically I'm sure he's off. 32,000 beans don't fit in a 14x20" cylinder.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>175462
Pro tip: He's not right mathematically, either.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>175454
Oh god, sorry wasn't paying attention. - Kinda' multitasking right now - Not my forté!

New conclusion:
Sigma = Cheaper. But the lower price comes at a cost.(excuse the pun)
Martin = Totally useless at Maths, but one of the coolest kids going. :>
>> Anonymous
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-AF-S-VR-Zoom-NIKKOR-70-200mm-f-2-8G-IF-ED-70-200_W0QQitemZ180239621199QQih
Z008QQcategoryZ152383QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
>> Anonymous
>>175463
Damnit.
>> Anonymous
The Sigma is significantly better than the Nikon or Canon offerings. If you are stuck with the Canikon systems then that is the best you can hope for.
>> Anonymous
>>175486

lolwut
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>175486
Dude, I use this lens day in day out at my job, and I'm here to tell you, it sucks. In what world is this a better lens? You have to stop down to f/4 to even APPROACH the sharpness of the Nikkor wide open. This lens is piss poor and I wouldn't buy it for $300, let alone what they're asking for it new.

Spend a little more, get a used Nikkor, you won't regret it.
>> Anonymous
>>175488

Please do not feed the trolls.
>> Anonymous
>>175463
I believe that you're forgetting the fact that hes using SUPER-MATHEMATICS. In which case he is in fact correct.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
lex luthor is better at math and he stole delicious cake

and that's terrible

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANYCamera ModelKODAK DX3500 DIGITAL CAMERACamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution230 dpiVertical Resolution230 dpiImage Created2003:06:03 01:17:42Exposure Time1/45 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramLens Aperturef/4.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length6.10 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width459Image Height305Exposure Index100
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>175489
Sorry, I just have a violent hatred of this lens. It boggles my mind why we can't have equipment bags of all good lenses... if I want the good Tamron 17-50, I have to settle for the shitty Sigma 70-200. If I want the awesome Nikkor 80-200, I have to settle for the GODAWFUL Sigma 17-35

Meh
>> Anonymous
uh, what?

please stop posting your nikon fanboy bullshit
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>175492
That's a good point. I stand corrected.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>175496
Trolllll. Whatever, don't listen to me, I don't actually use these specific fucking lenses or anything.
>> Anonymous
>>175498Trolllll.

... fucking roll eyes

the guy you were replying to in>>175486
was OBVIOUSLY a troll, yet you just had to run your mouth and reply to him

i just said stop posting your anti-anythingnotnikon bullshit posts you make like the one in>>175495
>> Anonymous
The Sigma 70-200mm is simply a brilliant piece of glass, no matter what mount you have. I'd consider the Nikkor slightly better quality-wise, but not for the price they're asking for it.

I sold my 70-200mm f/2.8 to my brother, and bought the 100-300mm f/4 instead...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>175500
I'm not anti-anythingnikon, I'm anti-shit. Both of those Sigma lenses I mentioned are dogs.

I used a 5D with the 24-105 f/4 IS the other day, and I think I came in my pants a little bit when I handheld a 105mm shot at a 1/10th. Then a popped a 35 1.4 on it and I really came in my pants.
>> Anonymous
>>175503I'm not anti-anythingnikon

obviously, you're pro-anythingnikon
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>175504
damnit, me no speaka da english
>> Anonymous
the other day, on the xbox live forums, some guy asked how to drive nails for his bookcase

i was 1st and posted a nikon camera

then i got banned for 2 weeks, fuck that
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Sigma at f/4, where it becomes usable

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop LightroomMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern686Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:05 14:03:07Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Nikon 80-200 wide open

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00PhotographerCaleb MillerMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern790Focal Length (35mm Equiv)180 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:05 14:04:06Exposure Time1/1600 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length120.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Same

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:05 14:06:18Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
They all look fine to me.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
Sigma wide open

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern672Focal Length (35mm Equiv)180 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:05 14:20:18Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length120.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
rofl, talk about inconclusive
>> Anonymous
I'm usually a defender of third-party lenses, but wow... you call that f/4 usable?

The Nikkor isn't subjectively much, either, but the Sigma just looks horribly bad.
>> Anonymous
>>175502
It is not a brilliant lens, it is decent for the price. If it weren't cheaper, nobody would buy it.
>> Anonymous
i really don't see anything wrong with the sigma at f/4 in>>175520

what's so bad
>> Anonymous
>>175537
It looks very soft. There's no microcontrast at all, or any other type of sharpness for that matter.

I've seen better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8, and I don't mean bridge cameras or things like the G-series or Heavyweather's Ricoh, than that at f/4.
>> Anonymous
>>175540

So maybe it's out of focus? Wouldn't be surprising.

Sigma's 70-200 2.8 is very sharp, if it works. It also may be out of design spec (they fucked up in fab), so it gives inferior images :P
>> Anonymous
>>175542
Focus looks to me to be on the boy's overall breast, which isn't very sharp either.

Bad sample is possible, but I doubt a daily paper would keep a bad sample in its inventory.
>> Anonymous
>>175542It also may be out of design spec
That's a common issue with sigma lenses. They often have pretty good designs, just terrible quality control. The only manufacturer I know of that has a worse record for producing bad lenses from good designs is the Russian company Arsenal that makes Kiev lenses.
>> Anonymous
I've seen tests with the Sigma and it was easily on a par with the Canon L, missing out only on build quality and now the IS (although that costs extra with Canon).
>> Anonymous
Heavyweather's copy looks like a bad one. I've got the older non-DG version and it's sharper than that wide open.
>> Anonymous
>>175540I've seen better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8, and I don't mean bridge cameras or things like the G-series or Heavyweather's Ricoh, than that at f/4.

please..

no point and shoot gets that kind of background blur
>> Anonymous
>>175561
1. Background blur is not necessarily a desirable thing.
2. While it's going to be less evident, they can still have nice bokeh, something this Sigma doesn't have.
3. I was talking about sharpness and the overall way it draws the image.
4. If you're looking at lenses just in terms of how much they can throw out of focus, you are doing it wrong. Go ahead and get a fast lens for 20x24 if that's all that matters to you.
>> Anonymous
>>175565

Troll.

If all you care about is sharpness, then you are not a photographer. The Holgafags piss all over you as they at least care more about the pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>1755651. Background blur is not necessarily a desirable thing.

except these are all candid portraits where it matters

>> 2. While it's going to be less evident, they can still have nice bokeh, something this Sigma doesn't have.

please show us a point and shoot image taken at 2.8 that have good background blur

>> 4. If you're looking at lenses just in terms of how much they can throw out of focus, you are doing it wrong.

yeah.. because i said something like that, fucking retard
>> Anonymous
>>175585
>>please show us a point and shoot image taken at 2.8 >>that have good background blur

impossible due to tiny sensor
>> Anonymous
>>175628

that was kind of the point i was trying to make
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>175585
We were talking about how soft the Sigma is versus the Nikkor. Of course sharpness isn't the only thing that matters.

>>175585
1. Candid portraits don't always need the background blurred away. Pic related.

2. More != better. There can be a small amount of good bokeh, a large amount of good bokeh, a small amount of bad bokeh, and a large amount of bad bokeh.

You're hung up on how much blur it'll produce as an indicator of how good the blur is and how good the lens is. That's stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>175646
Forgot to credit it: it's by HCB.
>> Anonymous
>>175646

>> I've seen better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8
>> I've seen better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8
>> I've seen better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8
>> Anonymous
>>175653
Yes, I said that. What the fuck is your point? That HCB didn't use a consumer point and shoot? I wasn't using that to illustrate it. I was using it to illustrate "background blur" is not a prerequisite at all for candid portraits.
>> Anonymous
show us those samples that have better results from consumer point and shoot lenses at f/2.8
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
holy shit what have I done D:

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern672Focal Length (35mm Equiv)180 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:05 14:05:08Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length120.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>175653
major fail anon.