[shoplink 6369]
[/shoplink]
Kurtmunger (Click here) tested the [shoplink 6369]Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II APO EX DG Macro HSM[/shoplink] lens for Sony: “Final thoughts; Sigma’s quality control is awful, I used three lenses for this review, the third lens they sent me was a winner. If you want to try your luck, and are patient, you might wind up getting a good one, at which point you’ll be hard pressed to tell the differences between the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 HSM II and the [shoplink 6370]Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 G[/shoplink], in both sharpness, focusing accuracy and speed. At the time of this review the Sigma is about half the price of the Sony, which makes it a great bargain…..only if you get a good one!”
Compare the price of the two lenses:
Sigma 70-200mm at [shopcountry 6369].
Sony 70-200mm at [shopcountry 6370].
One more thing: Tamron officially announced that the new 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II PZD lens will start worldwide shipment on April 15. It costs $649.00 and is already available for preorder in some stores. Check those direct links: [shopcountry 6373].
32 Responses
That’s why I prefer originals: No compatibility problems, no quality control issues, better mechanical quality, etc.
There’s a golden rule in market economics: Nobody can offer something cheaper or more expensive than others. If something is considerably cheaper, there is a (hidden) reason for it. Means: You get considerably less (here: Built quality, quality control, compatibility problems with the next body)
I’m still amazed by the image and build quality of my old & surprisingly compact Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO (Black version). The AF speed is more than adequate on my A700 as well.
After trying to repair a failed Sigma lens and explored the inner workings of their products, I’ve promised myself to stay away from Sigma, regardless of how cheap they are. I’ve also repaired several Minolta lenses and I’m always impressed by the ruggedness of them.
I have this lens along with 5 other sigmas and have never had any problem. I think people like things more, the more they pay for them. If you payed double for a sony lens, you have to justify it too yourself. I bet if you did a double blinded study of photos taken with the all the different brands of 70-200mm, and you had people guess which one belong to who, you would see no correlation.
Cheers, J
Sony version is famous for it bokeh. The difference can be seen well on Kurt’s photos. But the price…
It can also go the other way where you buy crap and then you try to hide the fact you wasted your money by saying that it’s just as good as the more expensive one. While inside, it’s eating you up and you will never admit it. But, saying that, I have owned one Sigma lens and it was great for what it was and for the price. But that’s with everything where “you get what you pay for”, except that Sigma is so inconsistent and there is a greater risk of buying something that just doesn’t work.
To think that sigma lenses even compare to zeiss on any level is pure denial and ignorance.
I don’t like zeiss MORE because I paid MORE for them. They’re simply just better made and deliver better quality images.
Sigma makes platic toys. So I’ll gladly do a blind test between zeiss and sigma
There is no Zeiss lens to compete with this Sigma. Therefore, Sigma wins hands-down.
I agree about the quality control. I bought one to replace the beercan 70-210 F4 and to days later the AF motor died. I was lucky enough to get my money back as I bought it used. Week later saw another 70-200 HSM II for canon mount for sale on kijiji guess what: as is with broken AF. Sigma has now 10 years warranty in Canada. Funny how my 15 year old beercan works better than the 1000$ sigma.
I have this lens and it’s my favourite ! I own a 28-75mm f:2,8 Minolta that’s really bad under f:4 but whith this lens I can work wide open.
The Sony 70-200mm isn’t Zeiss. Not to say the Sigma is better. Or the Sony isn’t great. I own the Sony and it’s amazing.
I like(d) this Sigma lens a lot. It still works on my A700 and A300 but no longer on the A850. There it worked for approx. a year and after upgrading the cam to firmware 2 it stopped focusing from one second to the next – after it had worked with the new firmware for 2 weeks. But today I brought it to the dealer for a lens software upgrade. Let’s see if that fixes it. If not, I’ll have to save a lot in order to be able to afford the white 🙁 Sony 70-200 lens. Basically it being 1300€ more expensive than the Sigma AND it being white made me choose the Sigma.
Regarding pic quality and bokeh: this makes me simply love the Sigma!
minolta 28-75mm f:2,8 ot bad at all, I use it on f2.8 all the time
i have this lens and it is sad to say the HSM is not quite up to standard..but looking at my budget and a need for a fast focusing lens, this was what i chose..tried on a200 and a850 and a900, focusing speed not much diff..wonder how it will now perform on my a77..maybe i did get a bad copy.
but in terms of image quality, let’s just go for the cheap tamron. plastic but hell its pretty good. better than sigma but would be only used in a studio since its focusing is slower than my sigma..tried it..
I’m with Rob above…my 70-210 beercan is still amazing at 20 years old. It isn’t great in low light, as it tends to hunt for focus. However, in good light, it is amazing. I shot a race with cars zipping by at 140 mph and my old beercan handled focusing like a champ, with crisp, sharp photos with great Minolta color and contrast!
The Beercan is excellent, though the Minolta 80-200/2.8 is a Beercan on steroids. I have both and the Beercan haven’t recieved much use since I got the 80-200.
It always puzzles me why some people insist on putting mediocre glass on quality DSLR bodies, especially FF pro bodies like the a850 or the a900. If it’s to save money, they should have factored in the cost of Sony G or Zeiss lenses before they committed to the system. But putting a sub-par Sigma or Tamron lens (and let’s be honest–the best of them are no better than average, optically) on one of these bodies is like throwing your money away.
Doug, I agree with you for the most part. However, after doing some research I decided to buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 over the Sony Zeiss 16-35 because the Tamron’s image quality is nearly identical to the Zeiss at about a third of the price (I got mine for $280).
Honestly, between my 50 1.7, 70-210 and my Tammy I have a total of about $550 in glass for my a700. Now, I am not saying this selection would be ideal for an a900, but for a 12.2mp camera, these lenses perform beautifully.
I use them in my studio as well as for weddings and event photography, and I can easily make 20×30 prints with extraordinary detail.
i agree with ren..when it comes to a cheaper alternative with good image quality, tammy is the way to go..i too have a 17-50 f2.8 which i use for my events as well as my home studio shoots..
then again, i think we really should not harp about having the best gears because i do know of a few friends who really do have the talent in photog but do not have the financial freedom to get such lenses. as such, they resort to other ways in getting what’s best at what they can afford and i think we should laud these people for their effort.
we have to remember, some glass cost twice as much as where you are residing now..
Yep, the Tam 17-50/2.8 is my only non Minolta/Zeiss-lens.
I think the only limitation of the 17-50 is that it’s prone to flare even from non-direct sunlight.
You cannot on earth compare the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 to the Carl Zeiss 16-35mm F/2.8!
The Tamron is an APS-C lens F/2.8 kit lens for APS-C sensors while the Carl Ziess is an UWA FF lens for FF sensors.
Cheap lenses on a fullframe body get you an advantage over APS-C with expensive glass.
http://www.artaphot.ch/dslrs/302-aps-c-vs-full-frame-2
Not all Sigma lenses are mediocre glasses..
If you see the lab tests (dpreview), new Sigma 70-200mm OS is almost as good as Sony 70-200mm G lens.
New Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens is actually shown better than Sony Zeiss 85mm. I was surprised, but indeed Sigma has changed. Its lenses are not just mediocre glasses anymore.
Bought a 24-70 sigma for a900 just over 1 year ago. Motor failed after 12 months. Sigma quote £75 for repair. Have no problems with 20 year old Minolta gear. Will never buy Sigma again. Beware
Any SSM/HSM/USM/etc lenses carry a danger of sonic motor failure. It is unfair to compare simple screw AF mechanism and complex sonic AF mechanism.
Yeah, there are certainly Minolta 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 lenses that have had SSM failures, it just comes with the technology.
Thankfully problems for us are no where near as bad as with early Pentax SDM examples.
The thing with sigma is not the quality but it’s quality control. How often do you hear the G and zeiss giving you problems? Not much for me. Sigma? Lost count.
Sigma glass and optics are usually brilliant… IF you get a good copy of the lens
I got the Sigma 85 1.4. It’s razor sharp in the centre wide open, though a little less contrasty. Stop down to 1.8 or 2.0 and the contrast comes back. It also has CA purple fringing along contrasty edges wide open, but it’s easily corrected. They are the two downsides of the lens. But the good points are amazing build quality (including full manual focus override, extendable hood etc), fast and silent focusing (much better than the grinding noisy zeiss) and the price
I also have the 24-70 EX DG, non-HSM version. It’s noisy focusing but very accurate and quick to lock on. And again it’s sharp wide open
I bought a sigma 70-300 for £130 and it was awful- missing focus all the time. I sent it back to sigma on Minday afternoon and it was back at my house fixed by Wednesday afternoon. Incredible. And for the cheap lens the image quality is great. Again a little lower contrast but very sharp and the build quality is pretty good
I can’t complain and I doubt anyone could tell the results apart with most of the things that our images are used for. Hint: 100% crops on a computer screen is ridiculous unless you print enormous and then hold it right in front of your face
Optical Quality Consistency is not what Sigma have…
both 3rd party and brandlenses have got tolerances, the same as on dslr´s.. i read numerous reports of people, who couldn´t get their brand-lenses perfect in focus, due to tolerances, wich vary all the time.. that is why they invented micro-adjustment. when you want to have zero tolerances, ofcourse you have to buy a much more expensive lens, like zeiss or a leica,(without guarantee that your ´art´ will become better btw) but hey, you people know what you want to buy, and you know who you are.. most backfocus-examples returned to manufacturors were perfectly in focus, only some people don´t want to believe, it is their own mistake, or lack of skills.i make better and sharper pics with my sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm II than a friend of mine does with his 70-200 2.8 G..
i have both the minolta beercan and this sigma.. the sigma is not as bad as some reviewers like to see it..this is one hell of a good lens.. i use mine now for 3 years, the last 2 years professionally.. i dropped it from 3 metres, i tried to thrash it, i used it in harsh conditions like rain, snow, freezing cold, and it still works flawless! when it fell 3 metres down, the only thing that was destroyed, was my sony alpha.. the lensmount broke off.. i picked up the lens, and bought a new alpha, this sigma still does it´s job.. the beercan is a very good lens, but it is an old design, loaded with CA, ofcourse, the g- and cz are better, but this sigma is great value for money! reviewers keep on whining about bad quality control from sigma, but in all these years, i never had a bad copy..i can tell you all this.. i work also with leica teleprimes, and this sigma gives the same quality as the minolta beercan or leica elmarit-r 180mm f/2.8..bokeh is about the same, maybe the sigma is somewhat softer at f/2.8 but is does it´s job very well..i have used the sony 70-200 2.8 G, and in some ways it could give some kind of an edge, but the price doesn´t match the difference in IQ when you compare that to that from the sigma..i can buy 2 sigma´s for the price of one sony-g.. i can destroy this sigma and still buy another one and i´m off again for some years.. i also don´t understand, why kurt munger is reviewing a sigma that is not available anymore new.. the newest sigma 70-200´s have OS and are even better than this ´old´ design..what was he thinking? if you start to make pictures, you will always see the flaws at some point.. better photographers start to work around these flaws, idiots start to whine about things.. no fancy lens will improve your pics..maybe they will get sharper, but in the end, if you don´t know what you´re doing, you will end up with some crappy razor-sharp pics wit a lens that you bought for too much.lens-sharpness doesn´t matter.. your camera doesn´t matter as well..this my opinion, doesn´t mean that somebody else has to agree with me ofcourse..
I’ve tested and sold well over 1,000 lenses for Sony cameras including all of the ones mentioned above. It is remotely possible that I have only received bad copies but I have never tested a Tamron or Sigma lens head to head against a Minolta or Sony lens and had the Sigma or Tamron be close enough in sharpness and color to justify the $ savings. If you can’t afford to fill your bag with great glass then just buy 1 great lens and make do with it until you can afford a 2nd.
My Minolta 2.8 absolutely destroyed the Sigma 70-200 on every shot!
I use Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 [old version ?] , 70 mm-135 mm at f 5.6 is very sharp. I try to avoid to use 200 mm, you know.