Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM Lens

[maijaathena]

Is anyone out in Photo.net-land currently using the new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG Macro HSM Lens? If so, do

you like it? Is is sharp enough for you? Or quick enough for action photography? What do you use it for? And

might you have any photo examples? Thanks so much in advance for your comments!

[JosvanEekelen]

Have a look at www.dpreview.com. They have just compared this lens with similar offerings from Canon, Nikon and Tamron.

[Leroy_Photography]

Maija, I'm looking at the same lens, but can't make up my mind between it and the Nikon. I'm afraid to get the Sigma (even though it's more in line with my budget) and then find that the Nikon would have been a better choice. The local camera shop is trying to locate one of each and I hope to take a look sometime this week. I'm still not sure the 70-200mm will meet my needs for shooting football at night and may end up saving for a 70-300mm instead. Good luck.

[maijaathena]

Hi Laura, I'm looking at the Sigma for the same reason... budget. I currently am using a Sigma lens (fixed focal lenghth), and I do really like it. But of course, the next step is a zoom/telephoto. What does interest me in this lens is the large f2.8 aperture for the relatively fair price. Please, if you do try it out, I would love to hear what you think. As I think we're kind of in the same boat -- you wanting to shoot football games at night, and my wanting to shoot ice hockey games and horses in indoor arenas -- action shots without the most ideal lighting. ;-) Good luck to you too! -Maija

[zafar1]

In the US, the price difference between Sigma and Nikon 80-200 is about 200$. Why bother with Sigma? I used Nikon 80-200 (current version, non AF-S) on my D70s. The AF was quite fast even in low light.

[eric_arnold]

with 70-200s, if you combined the tamron (high IQ, slow AF) and the sigma (average IQ, fast AF), you'd have the

nikon.at that price point i wouldnt expect a pro lens.