[kenyee]

Noticeably soft wide open

That's the main negative. The Tamron is supposedly sharp wide open and sharper stopped down...

[Denis]

That's the main negative. The Tamron is supposedly sharp wide open and sharper stopped down...

It is funny that you make such a statement. I own the Sigma and have seen the Tamron. The difference in IQ is difficult to see. The advantage of the Sigma is the quiet and fast focus, including the manual adjustment. Published reviews of any items does not sway my selection. I have an acquaintance that does reviews on telescopes items. His comments were "Balance". If you don't include a slight negative and positive to your review the public will react believing you are leaning toward certain product brands. He told me the best way is to try one and see if the results meet your market expectations for the money paid. If not keep your wallet closed. The Tamron has usable market place including the Sigma. Both in my opinion will meet general expectations but not all. Quiet and fast focus using HSM with good IQ results were the reasons I chose the Sigma. It is in the end a matter of choice.

[tmacdon]

All of these comments seem consistent with the generally positive reviews and opinions on the Sigma. However, I, as was Kenyee, remain concerned that a reputable camera rental agency is phasing out the Sigma due to motor problems with a significant percentage of their rental lenses. Is theirs “bad luck” or, after time and use, DO the Sigma wear out. I too am about to buy the Sigma, and hope to be dissuaded of my concerns.

[Arpe]

Yes, you'll have better luck shooting sports w/ the Sigma than the Tamron. Someone on DPR said the Sigma 70-200 HSM was the first lens he used that worked w/ AF-C (was fast enough) mode.

That's bull. I've got the first version of the lens - no HSM. I shoot sports a lot, quite successfully. Though the HSM may give me more keepers.

[kenyee]

That's bull. I've got the first version of the lens - no HSM. I shoot sports a lot, quite successfully. Though the HSM may give me more keepers.

That last statement is probably what he meant. Any lens and camera is capable of being used for sports. The question is whether you get 20% of your shots being keepers or 40% or 80%. The 1DmkII folks seems to always assume 100% but I'd be happy w/ 70%

tmacdon: you're nearby. Good to see another Pentaxian in the Boston area

[palmor]

tmacdon: you're nearby. Good to see another Pentaxian in the Boston area

There are a few of us around

[OregonJim]

tmacdon: you're nearby. Good to see another Pentaxian in the Boston area

You wouldn't know it by my sig, but I spent the first half of my life around Boston (Lynn, Swampscott, Revere, Peabody, Salem, etc.)

[ltdstar]

I have it and very pleased w/ it. Used it recently wide open at 170mm 1/2500 handheld, still sharp even at 100%



full res, no sharpening here :

HERE

[tmacdon]

That last statement is probably what he meant. Any lens and camera is capable of being used for sports. The question is whether you get 20% of your shots being keepers or 40% or 80%. The 1DmkII folks seems to always assume 100% but I'd be happy w/ 70%

tmacdon: you're nearby. Good to see another Pentaxian in the Boston area

Thanks, but we still do not know why the rental folks complain so bitterly about the Sigma 70-200, f2.8.

Maybe I 'll see you at Plum Island?

[palmor]

Thanks, but we still do not know why the rental folks complain so bitterly about the Sigma 70-200, f2.8.

Maybe I 'll see you at Plum Island?

You mean someone else with a Pentax shoots at Plumb Island!?!? I don't believe it



John

[juice]

I'd like to answer your question but I have only had my 70-200 for about 3 weeks total, despite buying it back in November.

It came with pretty bad front focus. I'm not a pixel peeper or brickwaller, but some of my closeup shots (say around 3m/10ft or 5m/15ft) were soft when wide open. This was due to front focus. AF calibration charts confirmed it, and manual focussed shots were sharp.

So I sent it in for repair, with my K20D body.

Weeks later it eventually all turned up again, but despite CR Kennedy having it in the shop it still wasn't 100%. A little better, perhaps.

I did a wedding shoot after I got it back and was pretty pleased with the results but some photos again looked soft, even stopped down.

So I look down the lens barrel and the inside front two elements have some weird speckly imperfections on them! No idea what they were, it certainly wasn't dust. Scary stuff I know, so I sent it back in for repair. 10 weeks later, it still hasn't shown up. Apparently it had to go back to Sigma in Japan for a rebuild...

Despite all that, the times I've used the lens it has been a joy. The autofocus is fast and silent and there is a really nice feel to the lens. Yes it's big and yes it's heavy, but these are the compromises you have to make with a 70-200 f2.8.

[squarerigger]

I have owned the lens since Dec '08 and find it to be a wonderful piece of gear. It is well engineered and rock solid. I have experienced no focus issues. It is heavy and takes some getting used to. I would not hesitate to purchase the lens again.

[tmacdon]

That's one of the reasons why I want the Sigma. as well as for Maine, Cape Cod and Latin America (where I "work.")

You mean someone else with a Pentax shoots at Plumb Island!?!? I don't believe it



John

[kenyee]

Thanks, but we still do not know why the rental folks complain so bitterly about the Sigma 70-200, f2.8.
Maybe I 'll see you at Plum Island?

If they truly had 3 out of 6 croak on them, that's a good enough reason. I'm just wondering whether it was because of heavy usage or travel via UPS that did the lenses in. I'm guessing UPS, so I'm probably going to give the Sigma a try. I just wish MS would crank up the fleabay cashback to 20% again

If I get a Tamron 300/2.8 adaptall, I'll be chasing eagles up at Plum Island. If not, I'll be trying fishing a few times up there this year (w/o the DSLR..it wouldn't survive dunking