Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II for Weddings?

[steve_elms]

<p>I was just wondering if anyone has any experience with this lens for use at weddings. I am giving it some serious consideration over the Nikon 70-200 simply due to the fact that it is almost 1/3 the cost (at least of the new Nikon 70-200). Just looking for feedback in terms of low light abilities, sharpness etc. (I will be using it on a Nikon D700 by the way...)<br>

Thanks!</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>I have the prvious version (not II). Opticly, it's a good lens. Biggest difference from the Nikon (apart from price), is probably lack of VR, which could be very signifigant in wedding work. I'm not a wedding photographer, so defer to those who are for more comments. Do be aware of the weight of any lens giving f2.8 @ 200mm.</p>

[karen_wright]

<p>Steve - please also consider the Nikon 80-200 2.8. I've just bought one as I couldn't stretch to the 70-200 version and it's VERY good. I use it on a D700too and love it! I picked mine up for £720.</p>

<p> </p>

[benzenees]

<p>It's a great performer i use it on my second body at weddings, great for candids, superb bokeh! fast quiet and you will reach for it more and more. i too am thinking of the d700 FF i currently use fuji's S5&S3<br>

Downside its heavy, i use it on the S3 after a while you will need to put it down, as the previous poster states all 200mm f/2.8 lens will be heavy, but you will always smile when you review the results it is a good saving over the Nikon built like a tank with simple, quick to operate collar mount you can get 1.4x/2x converters i have the 1.4x it drops the light to f/4 thats enough for concerts and the like.<br>

I am no expert but in real life use i dont see the difference between the Sigma and the Nikon if your on a budget save your cash and buy some softboxes and stands for first dances, stairway group shots and the like</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>This thead may be relevant to your thinking.</p>

<p><a href="00UtYb">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UtYb</a></p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I recently upgraded from a Canon 30D to a 5D mark II. I have always used the sigma 70-200 F2.8 Version 1. I thought when I upgraded to the 5d2 I would have to upgrade the Sigma to a Canon 70-200 F2.8 (L-series) lens. Quite the contrary, I have tested the Sigma side by side the Canon L and just can't tell a difference. Certainly not a difference worth spring $1800 for to get the L IS. I also use the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di which also campares very favorable to the Canon 24-70 F2.8L. I know I am not talking Nikon, but in comparing Sigma to Canon's best lenses it is definitely a serious contendor and worth every penny of its much lower price tag. The only complaint i can think of with this lens is when they get old (which mine is) the metalic like paint / suface texture starts to chip off. However, its still black underneath so it is not noticable and I definetly prefer the black lens of canon bright white L-series version.</p>

[joe_h3]

<p>I use the Nikon 80-200 2.8...got it used for $400. At that price its a great value and the lens is awesome. I had the same predicament as you and even at 2.8 in low light scenarios the lack of VR can be problematic, however, a monopod can at least help out in keeping it steady.<br>

You really have to weigh out the benefit of VR vs. non-VR because I don't think optically there is much difference.</p>

[geraint_hughes]

<p>im coming to the end of my saving for the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, as i wrote in here a while back asking bout the sigma version without IS for my canon 50d to shoot weddings and i got told to go with the canon IS version , they said ill be glad in the long run as its much better than the sigma???????</p>