Hi, does anyone have experience with Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX APO HSM lens? Is it (photo quality, focus ability) comparable with Canon's 70-200/2.8L? I appreciate any information about the performance of these two lenses.

-- Shawn Tang (xxt2@po.cwru.edu), March 17, 2000

Answers

Shawn,

I have had this lens only a short time. I am very impressed with the HSM motor. The autofocus is very fast and very quiet. I haven't really taken enough pictures to give a thorough review but what I have are very sharp. I also purchased the dedicated 1.4x converter because reviews stated that there was no loss of focus speed or image quality with the 1.4x although some was noted with the 2x. I have found this to be true and I also have a nice 98-280mm f4 lens for the price of a converter.

The real test of this lens will be long term. As you probably know Sigma does not have the best reputation for build quality although they seem to have good glass. Good glass doesn't mean much if it drops out of the lens onto the ground. I buy a lot of lenses used, try them out, keep the ones I like and sell the ones I don't. I have owned about 5 Sigma lenses and was always impressed with the image quality, but they just weren't built well. This lens is totally unlike those in feel and finish. It is very solid in all respects.

So, first impressions are that this is a quality piece of equipment. The durability question remains to be answered. I also have to consider that for the price of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L lens and a Canon 1.4x converter I could buy two Sigma combinations at the price I paid.

This question may well unleash the wolves and my last statement will bring out the "you get what you pay for comments".

Hope this is helpful.

Dick

-- Richard Snyder (rsnyder@lc.cc.il.us), March 19, 2000.

You get what you pay for!!!! Got ya Richard! I have a good friend who bought this lens and is totally happy with it. I do agree with you on the quality of aftermarket lenses. I now save my bucks and buy OEM. My Canon 80~200 F2.8 lens is now over six years old and is still working well. When I first began photojournalism as a career back in 1988, I purchased a Canon T-90 with a backup A1 and three Tokina pro lens: the 24~40 F2.8; the 35~70 F2.8; and the 80~200 F2.8. The image quality was excellent, but after two years, the lenses were beginning to feel the abuse a professional photography places on them daily. However, if you are not a pro and will not be shooting on a daily basis, go for it. I don't think you will ever see the image quality differences in the product you shoot.

Good luck

-- Richard Uhlhorn (Fabricdi@televar.com), March 19, 2000.

Thank you both, Richard and Richard. :-)

-- Shawn Tang (xxt2@po.cwru.edu), March 19, 2000.

The Sigma lense is VERY sharp (I have borrowed a friend's, many times). For the money, I don't know that it can be beat - and as a user with finite resources, everything always seems to come down to the money. Though, I have to agree with the other replies here - about picture sharpness vs. construction / durability. However, if you compare early Sigma lenses to the current line, I think you will find the quality has gone up. And, once you get away from the basic 35-80 sort of lense, that their speciality items are of decent quality (compare the original 400mm 5.6, 400mm APO 5.6, & 400mm HSM APO 5.6: there is a progression in workmanship, I think). There are many users who feel that although Canon L-series lenses are absolutely beautiful, their normal series lenses are nothing to brag about, and that even basic non-L Sigma / Tokina / Tamron take them. If you want to step up from the basic Canon-made lense, and cant afford or justify the Canon-L, the Sigma seems to be the lense of choice - even if you shoot often, very often.

-- Michael Tolan (mjtolan@kbjrmail.com), August 03, 2000.