# Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II - something



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

Any thoughts on that lens? talking about the $800-$900 lens without OS/IS/VR.
Seems like an awesome lens for the price!


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 18, 2011)

its alright.. not as sharp as canon or nikon's offerings and just isnt made as nicely. its an alright bargain for 8-900...

i personally would save up and get the canon/nikon. just me..


----------



## Dao (Jun 18, 2011)

Based on this article, the Sigma is not as good as the Canon nor the Tamron in terms of optical performance.  However, AF speed is on par with the Canon.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

hmm, according to Jared Polin this is an awesome lens.. but now I'm getting more unsure.


----------



## ultimadrift (Jun 18, 2011)

If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2011)

ultimadrift said:


> If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.



That post is what we in the USA call, "damning with faint praise."

Tord, not sure if you shoot Canon or Nikon, but the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 ED two-ring zoom is available in the $800-$900 range in used condition.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

Derrel said:


> ultimadrift said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't plan to blow up and print images...I think the sigma is a great alternative.
> ...



I know, but I've heard the 70-200 Sigma offers better optical quality and has way faster AF.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 18, 2011)

sigma is NOT better than canon or nikon optically.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

chaosrealm93 said:


> sigma is NOT better than canon or nikon optically.


That is just a silly comment.. Of course a Sigma lens from 2008 can offer equal or better optical quality than a lens from 1997.
Of course both the Nikon 70-200 VR's are much better, but for the price the sigma 70-200 Hsm II is a bargain!


----------



## Dao (Jun 18, 2011)

I do not think the Sigma is bad.  Especially if you are planing to use it with a crop sensor body because the center performance, according to few review sites, is quite good.  With crop sensor body and subject usually closer to the center, the result may not be that bad at all.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

Dao said:


> I do not think the Sigma is bad.  Especially if you are planing to use it with a crop sensor body because the center performance, according to few review sites, is quite good.  With crop sensor body and subject usually closer to the center, the result may not be that bad at all.



Awesome!  I have a crop sensor and is upgrading to D7000 within the next days.
The d7000 is a crop sensor as well, so i guess the sigma won't be a bad choice then.
I'm on a budget, for now, and it seems like the 70-200 sigma is a good value lens.


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 18, 2011)

TordFuglstad said:


> That is just a silly comment.. Of course a Sigma lens from 2008 can offer equal or better optical quality than a lens from 1997.
> Of course both the Nikon 70-200 VR's are much better, but for the price the sigma 70-200 Hsm II is a bargain!



perhaps, but more often than not, you would be talking about two lens of the same generation and type


----------



## Destin (Jun 18, 2011)

I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 18, 2011)

well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

chaosrealm93 said:


> well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..


same price so what's unfair?


----------



## Destin (Jun 18, 2011)

TordFuglstad said:


> chaosrealm93 said:
> 
> 
> > well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..
> ...



agreed. We're comparing what can be had in the $800-900 range. Sure the version II nikon 70-200 will smoke the siggy, but it's twice the price so it damn well better!


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 18, 2011)

maybe just me then.. i tend to compare things by generation.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2011)

Just to be clear: the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D "two-ring" lens does date from 1997, but it is NOT the "first generation" of the lens...it is the third model in the Autofocus era...the earlier two versions had one ring, and had entirely different AF limiter mechanisms. I owned two of those early, one-ring versions, which weigh a full pound less than later models. As noted in this Ken Rockwell review, this lens was, at one time, Nikon's top professional-caliber 80-200 zoom lens...it's pretty hard to compare Nikon's top-level equipment from the late 1990's with anything Sigma has made..with Sigma, you never know when something will fail, fall apart, or collapse on itself...with a pro-grade Nikkor lens, you can expect a 30-year lifetime without a single incidence of service...

I honestly think it's quite fair to compare a 1997 Nikon lens design with a $800 Sigma. The Nikkor will have the right color rendering; the Sigma will have that Sigma yellowish cast to all its images. The Nikkor is made entirely of metal...the finish will still be on the barrel in another 20 years...the Sigma sparkle-finish coating will begin flaking off in five years. The Sigma will lose half its resale value in five years...the Nikkor will maintain its value, or even appreciate slightly over the next five years. I own three Sigma lenses currently, their 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM, their 180/3.5 HSM EX Macro, and their 18-125 DC. They all have the typical yellow Sigma color rendering, which is very much opposite of Nikon's cool Nikkor color rendering.

I dunno...the two-ring 80-200 is a pretty solid lens for $800-$900 in today's market....and it is> NOT< I repeat, is NOT, the first version of the 80-200 for Nikon....        Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

Destin said:


> I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!



Those photos were very good!  That sigma looks so crisp and sharp!


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 18, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Just to be clear: the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D "two-ring" lens does date from 1997, but it is NOT the "first generation" of the lens...it is the third model in the Autofocus era...the earlier two versions had one ring, and had entirely different AF limiter mechanisms. I owned two of those early, one-ring versions, which weigh a full pound less than later models. As noted in this Ken Rockwell review, this lens was, at one time, Nikon's top professional-caliber 80-200 zoom lens...it's pretty hard to compare Nikon's top-level equipment from the late 1990's with anything Sigma has made..with Sigma, you never know when something will fail, fall apart, or collapse on itself...with a pro-grade Nikkor lens, you can expect a 30-year lifetime without a single incidence of service...
> 
> I honestly think it's quite fair to compare a 1997 Nikon lens design with a $800 Sigma. The Nikkor will have the right color rendering; the Sigma will have that Sigma yellowish cast to all its images. The Nikkor is made entirely of metal...the finish will still be on the barrel in another 20 years...the Sigma sparkle-finish coating will begin flaking off in five years. The Sigma will lose half its resale value in five years...the Nikkor will maintain its value, or even appreciate slightly over the next five years. I own three Sigma lenses currently, their 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM, their 180/3.5 HSM EX Macro, and their 18-125 DC. They all have the typical yellow Sigma color rendering, which is very much opposite of Nikon's cool Nikkor color rendering.
> 
> I dunno...the two-ring 80-200 is a pretty solid lens for $800-$900 in today's market....and it is> NOT< I repeat, is NOT, the first version of the 80-200 for Nikon....        Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)



I've had a rubbish sigma 70-300 lens for over 4 years now, it's probably the cheapest lens on the market.. The build quality isn't excellent in any way, but it looks like it did when i got it.. And it has been through some pretty harsh environments over here in Norway and Greece. So i wouldn't say Sigma lenses sucks that much. I even heard the 70-200 is the best lens sigma has ever built, so I'm nor afraid of that.

When it comes to the yellowness, Jared Polin stated in his review on YouTube that the Sigma was near to equal to the 70-200VRII when it comes to colours and bokeh but that it looses in sharpness and stuff like that. And I've never experienced any yellowness on my pictures with my totally crappy sigma lens yet.


----------



## Destin (Jun 19, 2011)

TordFuglstad said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> > I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!
> ...



It is. My copy is sharper than I'll ever NEED a lens to be. One thing to watch out for, is if you get a camera with more megapixels (D7000) it will show more imperfections in the lens. But my sigma 70-200 on my D80 has been a great, sharp combo for me.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

Destin said:


> TordFuglstad said:
> 
> 
> > Destin said:
> ...



Sounds awesome to me!  Jared Polin tried this lens on his D3s and said it was very sharp and crispy there as well, but a tad blurry for indoor fast sports. Can't wait to get mine!


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 19, 2011)

hmm... ok. enjoy?


----------



## Derrel (Jun 19, 2011)

20110526-DSC_0161 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110526-DSC_0070 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110525-DSC_0222 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


DSC_0121 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yellow. All the greens are polluted with yellow. But then, your photos, 90 percent or more of those on Flickr at least, have "different" color palettes than most people work in. The majority of your photos have extreme toning, so it would not matter if the lens has a sickly warm color cast, since the majority of the time your pictures are edited into a very stylized color look. Which I think is actually quite nice. It seems to me that in your photography, you are not striving for "accurate" or "realistic" or "representational" color renderings, but rather something much more artistic and individualized. Which I think is nice.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

Derrel said:


> 20110526-DSC_0161 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> 
> 20110526-DSC_0070 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> ...



First and foremost thank you very much! 
I can see what you are talking about on the yellowish part, but it's easily correctable in Lightroom.
The last picture was shot with the Nikkor 35mm f1.8G, so that would've been the auto WB in the D40.
But i can see your point with the yellowish greens.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

chaosrealm93 said:


> hmm... ok. enjoy?


bet you are one of those trolls who were rioting in vancouver..


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 19, 2011)

no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

chaosrealm93 said:


> no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto


Cool! U should go to europe sometime, loads of awesome motives!


----------



## Markw (Jun 19, 2011)

Okay, I honestly think Sigma is taking a hit too hard here.  I have owned the Sigma 50, 105, and 180mm Macros, 10-20/4-5.6, and 18-50/2.8 DC D lenses.  I do believe that all of them have been quite sharp indeed.  The 18-50, at least my copy, beat out the Nikon 18-70.  Sigma makes good lenses.  Very good lenses indeed, if you get a good copy.  I think that most of their upper-level lenses are _very_ accpetable in most situations.  I was going through the same dilema about a year and a half ago.  I ended up buying a Nikon 80-200/2.8D ED-IF.  I got mine used from ebay for $575, shipped.  You'd be EXTREMELY lucky to find something like that today, but it is posisble.  Anywho, the lens is a beast.  Coming from the Nikkor 70-300G, it weighed a ton.  It is built _extremely_ well, takes beautifully sharp, crisp photos, and I expect it to last me until..well..however long I need it.  It really is a tank of a lens.  But, that's not without its downfalls, if you can call it that.  The lens does give off quite a bit of torque in order to focus, and it isnt the quietest focusing lens in existance.  If you snap a picture as soon as the lens starts to focus, its inevitabley (sp) going to be blurry for this reason.  It can get quite intense.  I would KILL for the AF-S version, or the HSM of the Sigma for this reason.  But, like everyone else has said here, the 80-200s optics can't be beat by Sigma's 70-200 series.  Even though this lens is old and Sigma's is new and flashy, this is a beautiful lens, and, in my opinion, is still superior based solely on optics.  The 80-200/2.8 AF-S is the exact price of the 70-200/2.8 OS from Sigma.  

Just a thought.
Mark


----------



## chaosrealm93 (Jun 19, 2011)

TordFuglstad said:


> chaosrealm93 said:
> 
> 
> > no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto
> ...



i would love to. in fact, before you mentioned europe, i was planning on visiting there as well as egpyt and some other countries when i get the money ^^


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

Markw said:


> Okay, I honestly think Sigma is taking a hit too hard here.  I have owned the Sigma 50, 105, and 180mm Macros, 10-20/4-5.6, and 18-50/2.8 DC D lenses.  I do believe that all of them have been quite sharp indeed.  The 18-50, at least my copy, beat out the Nikon 18-70.  Sigma makes good lenses.  Very good lenses indeed, if you get a good copy.  I think that most of their upper-level lenses are _very_ accpetable in most situations.  I was going through the same dilema about a year and a half ago.  I ended up buying a Nikon 80-200/2.8D ED-IF.  I got mine used from ebay for $575, shipped.  You'd be EXTREMELY lucky to find something like that today, but it is posisble.  Anywho, the lens is a beast.  Coming from the Nikkor 70-300G, it weighed a ton.  It is built _extremely_ well, takes beautifully sharp, crisp photos, and I expect it to last me until..well..however long I need it.  It really is a tank of a lens.  But, that's not without its downfalls, if you can call it that.  The lens does give off quite a bit of torque in order to focus, and it isnt the quietest focusing lens in existance.  If you snap a picture as soon as the lens starts to focus, its inevitabley (sp) going to be blurry for this reason.  It can get quite intense.  I would KILL for the AF-S version, or the HSM of the Sigma for this reason.  But, like everyone else has said here, the 80-200s optics can't be beat by Sigma's 70-200 series.  Even though this lens is old and Sigma's is new and flashy, this is a beautiful lens, and, in my opinion, is still superior based solely on optics.  The 80-200/2.8 AF-S is the exact price of the 70-200/2.8 OS from Sigma.
> 
> Just a thought.
> Mark



I was thinking of the one without OS, so that's a bit cheaper than the 80-200 Nikon. but what you're saying is very true, maybe i should save the extra cash and buy something better. IMHO tho I still think the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a very very good lens.


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 19, 2011)

Here is a comparison of the two in question, actually it's two reviews from the same site but u get the point.

Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO macro (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis  

EDIT: The Sigma lens in this review is the *old* HSM, so i would think the HSMII is an improvement over that one.


----------



## ghache (Jun 19, 2011)

I also think you guys are probably too hard on it and never owned one..... i have one and i love it! Depending on what  you shoot, the sigma HSM II is a fine lens for the price. AF is fast as  ****. its solidly build, It has no "warmer" color cast or whatever, nothing that bothers me anyway. 

However, before buying mine, i was looking at the 80-200 two ring and decided to get the sigma for the faster auto focus and i've rented the 70-200 VR II a few times and its true that its less sharp wide open at the long end but not enough to say that the photos taken with the sigma sucks and are not sharp. All depend on what you do with the pictures at the end. I try to shoot mine on the 90-150 shooting portrait because its probably the sweet spot but i wont be afraid to shoot it at 200mm wide open.


On my d7000, this was shot at 200mm F3.2 at 1/200 (pretty dangerous to shoot at 1/200 at 200mm on a crop body)
I think its pretty damn sharp AND i only paid 600$ but got a deal from a buddy.


----------



## Markw (Jun 19, 2011)

The sigma is a great lens. Sigmas HSM is incredible, and that combined with the great optics, it makes the sigma Lenses a great buy. I don't want to discount it at all. But, the 80-200 is a little sharper if you pixel-peep hardcore. Whichever you get, you won't miss the other (maybe besides the HSM if you buy the Nikon.)

Mark


----------



## TordFuglstad (Jun 20, 2011)

Markw said:


> The sigma is a great lens. Sigmas HSM is incredible, and that combined with the great optics, it makes the sigma Lenses a great buy. I don't want to discount it at all. But, the 80-200 is a little sharper if you pixel-peep hardcore. Whichever you get, you won't miss the other (maybe besides the HSM if you buy the Nikon.)
> 
> Mark



I'm sure the 80-200 is a tad sharper than the Sigma.
Here's the pros and cons for the Sigma as I see it.

*Pros:
*Almost as sharp as the nikon Lenses
Cheap
Completely new, warranty (and in Norway we have something called reklamation, which means that if a product stops working like it should before 5 years after you bought it you'll get a new product or your product will be fixed)
HSM II motor, which means very fast focus
Good build quality, just 100g lighter than the 70-200VR Nikon.

*Cons:
*Other lenses are a bit sharper
Probably not the best build quality on the market, even though it's damn good.


----------



## pdq5oh (Jun 20, 2011)

I'll say this about the Nikon 80-200 I had. Ancient push pull and sharp to a fault, ha. AF was way too slow. Optically, I think that old lens was sharper than the Sigma. At all focal lengths and apertures. My 70-200 VR is everything that old lens was with way faster AF & VR. I've been thru the whole gamete of comparing lenses and found one thing. If best image quality is what you're after, maker lenses are the way to go.


----------

