Canon 10D and Sigma 70-210 f2.8

[alex_koo]

Bleurgh!

 

I've just got back from shooting a football tournament with my 10D

and borrowed Sigma 70-210 f2.8. I've opened the images up in PS and

they look terrible! So bleedin SOFT!

 

They were shot at 135mm, ISO 200-400, f2.8, 3200-4000th and on a

tripod.

 

I was going to get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 tomorrow for an indoor

basketball competition. Might not now. Might just have to get that

Canon 70-200 f2.8. Did any of you catch the review of the Sigma in

Practical Photography?

 

Alex Koo.

[edward_h]

I have the 70-200/2.8 EX HSM. Works like a dream.

 

Unless you're used to getting 50/1.4 @ f8 results then you'll find the 70-200 to be just fine.

[johnrwoods]

What did you have your parameters set to?

Or did you shoot RAW?

 

Its amazing what a little USM in photoshop can do (unless you misfocused). Post an example for us.

[alexdi]

To quote Puppy Face:

<p>

<i>I briefly owned the Sigma 70-210 2.8 APO (circa 1996). It was a steaming pile of dog-duty: heavy and with AF as slow as molasses. I returned it to Camera World after a week.</i>

<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007MVl

<p>

Presuming your shots were in focus (and with some Sigma lenses, that's a serious presumption), it's the glass.

<P>

DI

[alex_koo]

Hi,

 

Thanks to all of you for writing back.

 

I agree the 70-210 f2.8 is a pile of pooh. Dreadfully slow AF, hunts a bit, and makes a horrible noise after slamming into infinity and then crawling back to focus. Irrrr. Ckkk, Irrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

Shame really. I had high hopes. Oh yeah, to all future buyers, i could only get f2.8! Using the other apertures, it'd focus, but releasing the shutter you'll hear it click. 10D owners will know the sound of an ERR99!

 

I've booked a test shoot with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 IS. The Practical Photography Magazine liked the Sigma. We shall see how it goes.

 

Thanks again, Photo.net is a great source of information and advice,

 

Alex

[gbs]

You have to realize that photo magazines, like automotive magazines, are mostly industry/sales driven.

 

Nobody will say anything bad about a bad lense regardless of brand.

[john_sully]

I have two of the Sigma HSM lenses: a 400/5.6 and the 14/2.8. Both are quite good, if not as sharp as the (twice as expensive) Canon L equivalents. Sigma HSM lenses focus just as fast as Canon ring USM lenses since they use the same motor technology. I'm quite happy.

[model mayhem gallery]

I don't know if the Sigman 70-210 f2.8 is a different lens than the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX HSM which I just purchased. But the Sigma lens I just received blew me away with how sharp it is. I compared shots from my Canon 50 1.8 to the Sigma 70-200 both at F4 and F8 and can not tell a difference. I even compared the Canon 70-200L side by side Sigma and the difference was so slight I determined it was not worth the price diference. I was originally going for the Canon 70-200 F4L but got a better deal at same price and a F2.8.<div></div>

[khanh_nguyen8]

Not impressed with the Sigma Lenses. Tried out the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which was highly recommended and I found it to be loud, soft and slow. Paired next to the 70-200 F2.8 is wasn't even close(my opinion). When I first started out with the 10D I purchased some sigma lenses and the pictures were soft and i thought it was my newness to digital butg then I went to a local shop and tried the Canon L series and the EF-S series and I know it wasn't me. I guess you get what you pay for at times. I wasn't biased towards Canon before I tried out the Sigma Lenses. I am picking up my 10-22 EF-S, 17-85 EF-S and 70-200 F2.8 USM IS today. I have tried all these lenses and have been very impressed with its sharpness at all the focal lengths(I know there are CA, Bokeh, etc. but we are just talking about sharpness in this post correct?). The only debate I have is with the IS on the 70-200. They are lending me a 70-200 slightly used 70-200 USM non-IS to test out at 200mm. I want to make sure the $600.00 difference is worth it or not at that focal length. I don't carry tripods/monopods around with me when I shoot so this is how I would prefer it. I hope that I have a steady enough hand :) to not require the IS. I don't do a lot of indoor shooting or night time shooting that would require IS. Then again who knows what the future will hold. The EF-S lenses for my 20D are very sharp and a very close second to the "L" series lenses.

 

I don't mean to offend the Sigma owners - The lenses didn't work for me and perhaps I got a bad one, but since I didn't get a bad Canon I will stick to it instead. Also the glass on the Tamrons are pretty good as well - since they are the same glass used for the Canons. Just the coating process is different from Canon. I have to look at some primes in them or canon soon as well.

 

Khanh Nguyen

[glen_g]

I don't know about your experiences but my 70-210 2.8 APO for Nikon has been razor sharp. I also owned an 80-200 2.8 ED Nikkor and the Sigma is 99% as good for half the price. I worked for the second largest Nikon dealer in California at the time so got to own, use and test anything out there and for the money and the better tripod collar I kept the Sigma and traded the Nikkor for a Toyota truck that I still use. When I think about it now wasn't there an APO and a non APO 2.8? It's been years and if memory serves the non APO was crap.