D200 & Sigma 70-200mm f'2.8

[nick herbert]

<p>I have a D200 and am looking to soon buy a fast telezoom. I cannot afford the Nikon 70-200mm f'2.8 VR, so I am looking at the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM after reading several reviews. Does anyone have any experience of using this newer version of the Sigma on a Nikon body - D200 in particular? Is it soft at f2.8 like all the reviews mention? Is it tack-sharp at f4?</p>

 

[pete_harlan1]

<p>I hope you get an answer to this.<br>

I too have read the reviews and it seems one has to go thru several copies before getting a good one.<br>

Apparently the QC is not that good as many suffer from back or front focus.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I own this lens and use it with D300 prior to that on D80, I am very pleased with the IQ.<br>

there is a photo of a Robin in my portfolio taken with this lens at 2.8 and it is pretty sharp.<br>

I bought it used from KEH for around $650.<br>

here is a full image taken at 2.8</p><div></div>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>and 100% crop</p>

<div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>I am only aware of one review of the lens and it generally gets high marks. Definitely doesn't have the bells and whistles of the Nikon version but then, it's only half the price.</p>

<p>Looks like this lens, like some others, may not be so much 'soft' at f/2.8 as much as front or back focusing. While this can happen with any lens, it seems to be more frequent with Sigma. If you buy it new, it would be well worth it to send the lens to them to adjust the focusing.</p>

 

[bsd230]

<p>I took some test shots a while ago on my old D200 and they looked quite nice. I thought is was relatively sharp wide open and razor sharp at f4. That is usually the case, most lenses are sharper stopped down a little. I think the Sigma EX line is a viable alternative to Nikon's high end glass. I look at the Sigma EX line as the fill for the gap in the Nikon line between their top end glass and their cheap plastic consumer grade lenses. Why Nikon doesn't come out with a line of lenses equivalent to Canon f4L lenses baffles me. Until then Sigmas will be alternative.</p>

[nick herbert]

<p>Kris, <br>

Nice shot of the Robin but to me that looks a little soft. What focal length were you at? Do you have any more samples at f2.8 you could post?<br>

Does anyone else think the Robin is soft?</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>it was shot handheld at 200mm<br>

I don't have any more examples with f2.8 <br /> however I have some with this lens + 2x TC that gives you f5.6<br>

just go to my portfolio and there are some shots of robin and bluebird taken with this setup</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Nicholas, the shot that Kris provided is exactly what I was talking about. It appears to be front focusing a bit. The grass in the foreground looks a bit sharper than the bird to me. Of course it's also possible the camera inadvertently picked up the grass instead of the bird. This also happens sometimes.</p>

<p>In any case, Kris provided a shot of f/2.8 at 200mm. That's where the lens is known to be weakest anyway so personally, I wouldn't read too much negative into it.</p>

 

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Nicholas and Bruce,<br>

I shot some more photos and true the lens wide open is soft but stopped down to f4 or f5.6 it's very sharp.<br>

even with 2x TC lens being f5.6 is still soft I need to stop it down to 6.3 to get sharp results.<br>

Regards</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I checked the Sigma too, because the HSM after reading that the 80-200 f/2.8 was slow to AF. I found the Sigma to handle worse (the zoomring is reversed from Nikkors), and the AF was not all that much faster (on a D80 - the D200 should do even better with screwdriven lenses). I made several testshots, and found the 80-200 to be crisper too (wide open). </p>

<p>So, there's my recommendation: a AF-D 80-200 f/2.8.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>yes, the lens is front focusing ----- grass in front is sharper.</p>

[sammy_d1]

<p>The lens may or may not be front focusing. It is often difficult to get a good target for the camera to focus on, so it selects an area that you did not necessarily want. The focusing area the camera is using is larger than most people think. It is not the lens causing the problem, it is more a misunderstanding of how the focusing system works. </p>

<p>As far as lenses being soft when shot wide open, I have a owened more lenses than I can remember, and every one of them shot softer wide open than when stoppe down. </p>