Sigma 70-200 is soft ?

[nikolo5]

Hello everyone!

 

For some reason my forum answer disappeared, so Im making a a new post..

 

Searching a 70-200 telezoom (and being focused on Sigma 70-200 DG) I found it is

pretty soft on www.photodo.com, whereas people generally have a good reviews

about it (like "great color", "sharp at any f/", etc.).

 

Did photodo get a bad copy? It is noticeably softer at 2.8 than both Nikon and

Canon counterparts (See the pictures) and noticeably more yellow.

 

For those who compared themselves, did you mention the same ?

 

Regards,

N.B.<div></div>

[diane_madura]

Nick, I cannot comment on the lens you are asking about, but it has been stated several times on this forum that the Sigma 10-20 has a slight yellow cast to it.

[nikolo5]

Diane,

 

I have Sigma 10-20, I did a test vs kit nikkor (well it is just Sigma vs Nikkor philosophy comparison, not real lenses..) and Sigma was NOT more yellow, or it was not noticeable for me, but it is more noticeable in 70-200 case (to do not say "evident").

 

The attached picture has a corner comparison from photodo.com<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

Send it to Sigma and ask that the sharpness be addressed.

 

My opinion is Sigma started life as a third rate manufacturer and never matched the rest

of the world to this day.

 

There have been more complaints about Sigma here than everything else combined. If

you own the lens and the issue can not resolved in or out of warrantee, ie they say lens

meets specifications, then E Bay it. That is why I don`t E Bay, buy or sell.

 

The perfect case is one yellow 10/20. Ones I looked at were not yellow. They have no

control. Numerous cases of 30 1.4 that fore or back focus have been reported here. One

person did report they got terrific customer service with follow up phone calls after he

received it back from repair. I guess the point is It should be right from the factory. That

or they bet most will accept what is delivered, but they will fix it if people complain. Just

like the secret warrantees in the auto industry. I don`t know but will tell you I will never

buy one.

[thomas_fiege]

hi nick

 

I do have one of the first 70-210 f2.8 sigma lens. It is not that sharp at 2.8 but for me it is ok. the later are better. also it have some yellow in the pics. but I think that is no problem to correct with seting the WB manually.

[dan_brown4]

My Sigma 50-150/2.8 had some softness due to decentering. I sent it to Sigma USA, they

fixed it in 8 days, and it's been great ever since. I also got the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and it's

been perfect from the get-go.

[jmichaelc]

I have the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and it's a very sharp lens but....

 

To get this shapness, for some CRAZY reason, you have to manual focus. Sucks.

 

It's not the glass, it's the AF calibration that is off. I've sent mine to Sigma two times for calibration and they get close (As the photo above suggests) but not perfect. Switch to MF and it's spot on, even at 2.8. Seems such an easy fix but apparently not.

 

I still use this lens quite often, it's HSM is slient and the AF is pretty darn fast. Not as fast as my canon 70-200 F4 but not far from it. I had mine for sale, and still contemplate it, but keep holding on to it because it performs great and some of my favorite photos has been producted from it.

[Matthew Brennan]

Hi Nick,

I have the current model DG HSM 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma and it's the sharpest zoom lens I use, even sharper than the 17-55 DX Nikkor. I have no problem with sharpness and it focusing correctly on my D200. I purchased my lens new from a reputable dealer.

 

It's entirely possible that some forums/ review sites have recieved a dodgy / poor sample- I purchased a very poor specimen of a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens which Nikon Aust. was unable to do anything for - I sold it and moved on. Others tell me thay have fine examples of the 18-200 VR but mine was like shooting through two pairs of pantyhose......