jose_rivera9 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I want to know what has been the experience with this lense? Does the Macro really make it worthwhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sngreen Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 According to dp (and I hate to use them as source) it does not. If you are looking for macro these are your options; Sigma 150, Sigma 105, Tamron SP90, Nikon 105, Nikon 60 (my preference goes to 105). Remember primes will always do macro the best. - sergey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Brennan Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Jose, I have this lens. It's an excellent, fast and high quality short telephoto zoom and the HSM is every bit as fast and quiet as high end Nikkor zooms like the 17-55mm DX but I believe the 'macro' designation really only related to an improved minimum focus distance (which is 1.8 metres from memory) I have indeed tried some macro work with this lens and found 100 -120mm at apertures of f/4 or greater to yield the best results but my old Kiron manual focus 105mm f/2.8 dediacated Macro prime lens is head and shoulders above the IQ from the Sigma. The sigma 70-200 is a bit of weight to deal with for the precise requirement of macro photography - horses for courses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commtrd Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Interesting to see some info on alternative to Nikkor 70-200 since it is so difficult to find them in stock anywhere. Hopefully there will be a Nikkor 70-200 in stock at B & H or somewhere someday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 "Does the Macro really make it worthwhile?" I used this lens for some months and I used the successor, the Sigma EX DG HSM Macro II 70-200/2.8. IMO the macro option of the first Sigma "Macro" zoom is not worthwhile. Version II is visibly better but don't expect any miracles. At least you have to stop down the lens 'til 8 to get an acceptable quality. Last week I did some closeup shooting with an AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200/2.8 with an excellent achromatic Canon closeup lens on it (Canon 500D). Results were much better than these made with the Sigma 70-200 II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_rivera9 Posted July 25, 2008 Author Share Posted July 25, 2008 Thanks for the responses. I actually just got the lense today and I feel it is too heavy to do any macro work. But the IQ does look good so far. If you have any other suggestions on handling (I don't think hand holding will be much of an option) please feel free. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_thomas9 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Hi Jose, I'm interested with this lens. Can you please kindly post some pictures maxed out at 200mm whenever you get a chance? Thank you sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_butner___portland__or Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 For what its worth, the newly released Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, is considerably better than the Sigma version. This is according to the new Pop Photo lens testing. Just passing this along. I have no experience with either one of them. Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_ngo Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 Russ, you're right. POP photo review is more accurate with my copy than the other. http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/5436/tamron-70-200mm-f28-di-ld-macro-af-sp-lens-test.html Rico, you may want to see my Tam's sample pictures here. I'm so happy with this lens. http://www.flickr.com/photos/huytuong/sets/72157605955363658/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 "For what its worth, the newly released Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, is considerably better than the Sigma version. " Russ Yes, that's correct: The Tamron's IQ is better than the Sigma's (it is astonishingly good, even at full aperture with a EOS 5D).... ... but its AF speed is so sloooooooow (and noisy). At present I use the Tamron 70-200/2.8 with Canon mount (still no Nikon mount available). Following moving subjects like children on a bicycle is a thing next to impossible with the Tamron (5D/40D). Here the Sigma HSM shines. I prefer to stop down the Sigma a bit instead of using the Tamron only with static subjects. Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_rothman1 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I did a recent review of the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on the Nikon forum. I've worked with the Sigma version as well, and agree with one thing only, the focus motor is better. However I don't get what all these comments about "noise" in reference to the focus motor are. It is nearly silent unless you rack it from one end to the other. In good light it CAN follow moving subjects other than fast moving birds maybe. In lower light focusing is indeed slow....but it gets there for static subjects. It is way sharper than the Sigma however wide open. That is the thing that mightily impresses me so far. I rather like the build as well. it's better balanced, and lighter in weight as well. All in all the Tammy is not bad to say the least.The focusing on the Sigma is NO speed demon and certainly not in the AF-S league either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now