Customer Reviews

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

At this point, almost every lens I own is a Sigma, the only exception being my Tamron 17-50 2.8 (which is a very, very solid lens). I've owned the Sigma 120-300 2.8 for a handful of days (the best lens I've used), and the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR. Both were returned due to the cost that I simply couldn't stomach at this point. I had read the professional reviews for this lens, and was worried about purchasing it because they weren't exactly glowing.
Well, I'm here to tell you that from what I've read, the professional reviews for this lens are spot on. That's good and bad, as anyone who's read them will know.

The good is that the autofocus in this lens is stellar. It's very fast, and is at least as fast as the Nikkor. The zoom ring and focusing rings are smooth, and the lens seems to be very well made, like all of my other Sigma lenses. Not only is the autofocus fast, it's quiet. It's really not that heavy, either, and I find it quite comfortable to use (compared to the 120-300, this thing is light as a feather, and it's weighted much better than the Nikkor). I also find the lens to be reasonably sharp through most of the zoom range, especially stopped down (as it is for most lenses, even Nikon). Yes, I did say through most of the zoom range.

The bad rears its ugly head at the long end of the zoom (which is really too bad, considering that's where you're likely to be keeping a lens such as this most of the time). At 200mm, this lens loses a lot of sharpness, and although stopping down does help a lot, it simply shouldn't be this bad. Are the photos unuseable? I wouldn't say that, and Photoshop can almost perform miracles in most cases. But what's worse than the sharpness (or lack thereof) is the chromatic abberation. There's a LOT. I mean, a LOT at 200mm. It's got the worst CA of any lens in my collection, hands down, and the worst of any lens I've used. Perhaps this is in part due to Sigma's valiant attempt to make a macro lens out of this one, and that's really the other fairly bad part about it--the macro isn't that great either.

It also needs to be taken into consideration that I'm using this lens on a Nikon D300s, which is a DX (small) sensor camera. So your results may differ should you use a full frame.

In the end, I'll be keeping this lens for a number of reasons. One is price. At a third of the cost of the Nikkor, this lens makes up some serious ground and can be forgiven quite a bit. The second is the autofocus. Wow it's fast. And accurate. Since I'm going to be using this mainly for sports, that's very important to me. And funny though it may be, the other reason is the macro. Yes, it's not great, but I still love having a lens with this zoom range that has macro capabilities. Apparently there have been major compromises to get it there, but it is what it is. I would have given it 4 stars, simply because of the cost, but in the end I decided on 3, because if Sigma want to play with the big boys, they really need to do a little better than this showing.

So in considering this lens, you need to ask yourself exactly what your needs are as a photographer, and will the advantages of this lens be enough to outweigh the disadvantages. For me, the answer is yes... but you have to make up your own mind.

I was worried when I bouught this lens because I had only tried the Tamron copy, but my only experience with non-Nikon is with Sigma. I LOVE this lens. I got it for shooting sporting events for my university newspaper, and have had no problems in the month that I've had it. It autofocuses faster than the Tamron. A monopod isn't necessary because it's such a fast lens. Even at night with stadium lighting, the AF has little trouble.

The best thing I've heard for people wanting to shoot sports since buying this "cheap copy" lens came from a professional on the sidelines the firtst time I used my new lens. He said to my question about the Nikon 70-200mm, "Honestly, I turn the VR off when I'm not doing still portrait shots because it gets out of whack when I start following a moving person."

Made me feel VERY content with my decision to buy the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

I thought about going with a Nikon lens, but after looking at the features and prices, I thought this would be a better option. So far, I'm extremely pleased with it. It's truly sharp, even at 2.8. Focusing is fast and quiet on my D200. I could not be more happy with it. The accessories that came with it -- lens hood and soft case -- are nice touches, too.

And, in this price range, I also appreciate the fact that the focal range starts at 70mm -- and the macro feature works quite well at this range, too.

For the money, this is a fantastic lens. I am too green to give a better review, but I wanted to point out that this is a EX, APO lens (you can see APO if you enlarge and zoom, but EX you can't and it's not in the product description). I was concerned about that, but glad to see it on the box and on the lens when I unwrapped.

according to Sigma this lens has:

EX - EX Lens. Denotes superior build and optical quality (similar to Canon's "L" and Nikon's "G" specification).
APO - Apochromatic Lens. APO lenses minimize color aberration. The Sigma APO lenses are made using special low-dispersion glass, which helps to compensate for color aberration, allowing for sharper images.
DG - For full-frame digital and 35mm film cameras. The image circle on these lenses are suitable for full-frame digital and 35mm film cameras. Sigma has concentrated on the correction of distortion and aberrations.
IF - Internal Focus. Lenses with this designation move the inner lens group or groups without changing the lens' physical length to ensure stability in focusing.
CONV - APO Teleconverter EX. Lenses with this designation can be used with the Sigma APO Teleconverter EX. Using it will increase the focal length and it will interface with the camera's auto exposure function.
HSM - Hyper-Sonic Motor. HSM lenses use a motor driven by ultrasonic waves to provide quiet fast AF, Sigma's version of Canon's in-lens ultrasonic motor. HSM makes autofocus faster and facilitates simultaneous use of manual and autofocus.

I wish I could give it 4.5 stars, because it isn't perfect, but pretty close when considering the price. It is worth every penny I paid. However, it can't compare to the Nikon VR lens (much more $$).

I have used it several times to shoot low light stage productions/dances. Taking hundreds of photos in a night, I haven't had any problems. It does really benefit from a monopod/tripod in these situations. Really, some sort of stabilization is required, so the included tripod mount is a must. Also, the lens is pretty heavy.

I came in to owning a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF (basically the version before Nikon came out with the VR version) a week after I bought my Sigma. I like some characteristics of the Sigma a little better. The macro feature on the Sigma was superior, and the color was a slightly more true when photos were compared side by side (taken with same camera body).

I wish it had a hard case, the soft case doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Nikon's hard case for their lens is really awesome.

The auto focus worked well, fast, and generally accurate. I occasionally have difficulty tracking an object in low light. But not so much that it gets in the way of shooting. I didn't try the Nikon in this setting so I don't know if it would do the same thing. And I never owned a lens at this focal length before these lenses for comparison.

I am very satisfied, but the whole experience lacks that little bit of polish to make it perfect. Given the present alternatives, I would buy this lens again.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

This lens is really great. I am a hobby photographer mostly photographing my kids in sports. I have to deal with dimly lit gyms and access from the bleachers. This lens does it. Since it is so fast even the worst high school gym lighting isn't a problem and action shots are great. I rarely use any other lens on my Rebel XSi because this one is so versatile. It works for the family causual shots, vacation shots and especially those kids playing sports shots. It's long enough for baseball and softball while at the same time fast enough for those indoor shots of basketball. I toyed with the idea of holding out for an IS lens, but just wasn't willing to pay the freight for that. Not having the IS hasn't been a problem. This lens works great for my purposes and I would recommend it to every "hockey mom", "basketball dad" etc.

I have owned this lens for about half a year now. I have used it for sports, widelife, portraits, and general photography. In every one of those fields it has performed admirably. I find it quite sharp at f/2.8 (perfectly usable at least), and it only gets better from there. At f/4-11 it is tack sharp. I cannot imagine that the Nikon version performs much better at this aperture range, nor can I imagine that it is almost $1000 better at the f/2.8 range. I shoot with this lens wide open the majority of the time, and have never thought a shot too soft for my uses. The HSM motor provides a very fast, and usually accurate focus, but the focus can hunt slightly in low light, or if switching from dark to bright lights, however this has hardly been a problem in my field usage of the lens. As far as build quality is concerned, this is a very sturdy lens, indeed my best built lens. The finish is a little odd, but I hardly care about that given the excellent performance of this lens. The tripod collar is easily taken off, and provides quick pivot from horizontal to vertical orientation, useful when the lens is mounted on a tripod or monopod, the latter of which I use when photographing sports or theater because of the weight of the lens. I would suggest this lens to anyone who is on a (relative) budget ($800 is still a lot of money). I have total faith in Sigma as a company after this purchase, and currently have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (which I will post a review of) and the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 on my horizons. So if you need a fast, durable and optically sound bit of glass, but cannot justify the Nikkor option, this is the lens for you.

I get right to the point. I bought this lens for my Nikon D700 and D300 and for the money I must recommend this lens. Bokeh is pretty good and the HSM is fantastically quiet. The lens does seem to hunt more than most for that perfect focus but for the money its great. Give this lens a lot of light and it will function like a 50mm F1.8, while in the dark it wants a little more time to get that perfect shot. Get this lens if you need to save some money and don't need to feed your ego with a top of the line Nikon lens.

This lens is a fine (cheaper) alternative to the 80-200 or 70-200VR. I used the lens on the D700 and it provided excellent images. Focus was fast, quiet, and reliable. I have read a lot about these lenses front-focusing, but mine was spot on. I liked the size and build quality of the lens (yes it is heavy, but it is 2.8 glass, to be expected) - it is a little shorter, fatter, and lighter than the 70-200VR. I really like Sigma's lens collars, though I find the tightening knob a little too close to the camera body, this detracts a bit from handling, when trying to quickly shift from landscape to portrait orientation when mounted on a mono/tripod. This lens could benefit great from stabilization, which is the only reason I marked down to four stars. Sigma has a stabilization system already in place on several of its lenses and it is curious that this one lacks it. If it had OS it would be a monster hit! As it stands currently, it is a good alternative to the far pricier Nikon version of the same focal length range.

All in all a very very fine lens. Highly recommended.

Lastly, and this is a gripe against Amazon, prospective US buyers should note that you typically get four years of warranty (1 + 3 years extended) from Sigma (and they have excellent service I hear), but if purchased through Amazon, it is only one. The website description only mentions one year and the card for the extended 3 years of warranty is not included. For this reason I am returning the lens to Amazon and can purchase it elsewhere for about the same price or less with an extra three years of service.

I have a Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 Lens for my Nikon D300 and I love it. At the current price of the Nikon lenses though, I realized I could only afford one. That left a "hole" in my arsenal...specifically a 70-200mm F/2.8. The Nikon glass, at $2000 or better, simply was not in my budget. I researched the Tamron and Sigma lens and went with the Sigma because the reviews indicated that the noise level of the focusing motor on the Tamron was simply unacceptable.

I am very happy with the Sigma lens. It is just as quiet as my $1800 Nikon 24-70 and the pics are really sharp, taking into account the quality of glass involved. Nikon's glass is $2000 and Sigma's is around $600. Yes, you get what you pay for. With the Sigma lens fully scoped out at 200mm, the resulting pic is a little soft but I knew about this from the reviews so I wasn't surprised. Otherwise I find the lens to be tack sharp and able to auto-focus very quickly. The resulting "soft" pics from the Sigma can easily be rectified by the available sharpening software on the market today.

I use the Sigma lens on both the Nikon D300 and a Nikon D7000 which shoots video as well. I am having a kick using the D7000 camera and experimenting with video on a DSLR. I go back and forth between the Nikon 24-70 and the Sigma 70-200 and so far, the results have been just great. So good in fact, the only differences I can tell from the more expensive Nikon are the slightly softer focus at full zoom and the price tag.

Hope this helps those who want to move up to a 2.8 lens in the 70-200mm range but don't have the 2 grand around to pay the big bucks for Nikon glass. For the money, Sigma can't be beat!!