Is my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II a bit soft?

MrMuz · 05-07-2009, 02:48 AM

I've had this lens for a couple of weeks now and although I'm generally pleased with it I can't help but thinking it's a bit soft wide open. I haven't done any mirror up tripod shots yet but plan to after the weekend. Has anyone else got any experience with this lens or any 2.8 pictures they can post so I can compare sharpness? just noticed my fat fingered thread title!

Toshi · 05-07-2009, 02:56 AM

Fixed the title for you.

I don't have the lens but I've read reports of it being a bit soft wide open. Hopefully someone who has it can put up some samples. I'm kind of interested in this lens as well. How do you find the AF? Is it pretty quick?

MrMuz · 05-07-2009, 03:57 AM

The focus is extremely quick, glad Sigma finally pulled their finger out on HSM for Pentax. Shame I have the old 10-20 but oh well. The build quality is top notch and the focus and zoom rings are particularly nice. I'll post some pictures when I get a minute.

kenyee · 05-07-2009, 06:16 AM

have you tried manually focusing? Sometimes wide open the DOF isn't very big so it'll look soft when it's actually BF/FF...

Mike.P® · 05-07-2009, 07:26 AM

A quick test shot taken with my MKI 70-200mm at f2.8 for you to compare.

No cropping.

100% Crop

MrMuz · 05-07-2009, 11:47 AM

Thanks for the quick replies.

I did read about FF issues with this lens but I'm pretty certain this isn't the case, if anything there is a minute amount of BF. Thanks for the sample pics, I haven't done anything scientific yet (away with work

) but I am seriously starting to think I have a bogus one. I have to stop right down to get anything decent out of it. I'll do some mirror up, SR off tripod shots of a ruler outside or something and get some second opinions before I take it back. My local dealer though very helpful is somewhat sceptical about this sort of thing...

lunelson · 05-07-2009, 12:06 PM

Mine is currently in for service because it was front focusing. When focus was correct, images were very sharp though, even at f/2.8. The major problem at f/2.8 with mine is not sharpness but lots of CA. I'd say to double-check your focus and be sure it's not causing the problem.

palmor · 05-07-2009, 06:54 PM

I bought the lens and then returned it because I was unhappy with the results compared to my old non-DG version I used to have. One of the things I found (which was later confirmed after reading the review at dpreview) is that it can misfocus as close distances. So when I thought mine was soft I did some test charts that came out REALLY bad.. but when I took shots a little further away everything looked decent.

Back to your original question.. I did find it soft wide open compared to the old version.

John

MrMuz · 05-08-2009, 12:48 AM

Thanks for the replies. Think I will be in the market for a 200mm 2.8 or 60-250 if my tests confirm my suspicions but I'll post pics and get some opinions first.

Mike.P® · 05-08-2009, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by MrMuz

Thanks for the replies. Think I will be in the market for a 200mm 2.8 or 60-250 if my tests confirm my suspicions

Although I am quite happy with my 70-200mm MKI I have the 60-250mm coming today as it seems a better focal length for me even if it is a bit slower.

MrMuz · 05-08-2009, 07:43 AM

My significant other would have kittens if I didn't get rid of one before buying another.. not so close together anyway.

Mike.P® · 05-08-2009, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by MrMuz

My significant other would have kittens if I didn't get rid of one before buying another.. not so close together anyway.

Do what I did ... just don't tell her

MrMuz · 05-10-2009, 09:55 AM

Right. This shot is 2.8 mounted on my tripod with the mirror up and SR off...

I'm new to this posting photos malarky so please have some patience!

MrMuz · 05-10-2009, 01:31 PM

don't know why that link won't show up... here it is

Picasa Web Albums - Marcel

Mike.P® · 05-10-2009, 01:40 PM

I dont think the lighting helps your shot at all but if that was my lens I would be taking it back to where I bought it from asap.
The shot I posted for you to comapre with wasnt even on a tripod but handheld.
There you go, displayed on the forum

05-07-2009, 02:48 AM	#1
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31	Is my Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II a bit soft? I've had this lens for a couple of weeks now and although I'm generally pleased with it I can't help but thinking it's a bit soft wide open. I haven't done any mirror up tripod shots yet but plan to after the weekend. Has anyone else got any experience with this lens or any 2.8 pictures they can post so I can compare sharpness? just noticed my fat fingered thread title!

05-10-2009, 09:55 AM	#13
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	test shot Right. This shot is 2.8 mounted on my tripod with the mirror up and SR off... I'm new to this posting photos malarky so please have some patience! Last edited by MrMuz; 05-10-2009 at 10:00 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Sigma 70-200mm (non DG, non macro, non HSM)	Just12hvFun	Post Your Photos!	7	04-17-2010 10:49 PM
Considering the Sigma 70-200mm 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG MACRO HSM II	sbluems	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	03-22-2010 10:15 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM II Macro	ivoire	Sold Items	3	01-04-2010 09:23 PM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II on K10D	rwheeler	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	12-08-2008 06:11 AM

05-07-2009, 02:56 AM	#2
Toshi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 431	Fixed the title for you. I don't have the lens but I've read reports of it being a bit soft wide open. Hopefully someone who has it can put up some samples. I'm kind of interested in this lens as well. How do you find the AF? Is it pretty quick?

05-07-2009, 03:57 AM	#3
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	The focus is extremely quick, glad Sigma finally pulled their finger out on HSM for Pentax. Shame I have the old 10-20 but oh well. The build quality is top notch and the focus and zoom rings are particularly nice. I'll post some pictures when I get a minute.

05-07-2009, 06:16 AM	#4
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	have you tried manually focusing? Sometimes wide open the DOF isn't very big so it'll look soft when it's actually BF/FF...

05-07-2009, 07:26 AM	#5
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	A quick test shot taken with my MKI 70-200mm at f2.8 for you to compare. No cropping. 100% Crop

05-07-2009, 11:47 AM	#6
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	Thanks for the quick replies. I did read about FF issues with this lens but I'm pretty certain this isn't the case, if anything there is a minute amount of BF. Thanks for the sample pics, I haven't done anything scientific yet (away with work ) but I am seriously starting to think I have a bogus one. I have to stop right down to get anything decent out of it. I'll do some mirror up, SR off tripod shots of a ruler outside or something and get some second opinions before I take it back. My local dealer though very helpful is somewhat sceptical about this sort of thing...

05-07-2009, 12:06 PM	#7
lunelson Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 80	Mine is currently in for service because it was front focusing. When focus was correct, images were very sharp though, even at f/2.8. The major problem at f/2.8 with mine is not sharpness but lots of CA. I'd say to double-check your focus and be sure it's not causing the problem.

05-07-2009, 06:54 PM	#8
palmor Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: North of Boston, MA Posts: 798	I bought the lens and then returned it because I was unhappy with the results compared to my old non-DG version I used to have. One of the things I found (which was later confirmed after reading the review at dpreview) is that it can misfocus as close distances. So when I thought mine was soft I did some test charts that came out REALLY bad.. but when I took shots a little further away everything looked decent. Back to your original question.. I did find it soft wide open compared to the old version. John

05-08-2009, 12:48 AM	#9
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	Thanks for the replies. Think I will be in the market for a 200mm 2.8 or 60-250 if my tests confirm my suspicions but I'll post pics and get some opinions first.

05-08-2009, 01:22 AM	#10
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Originally posted by MrMuz Thanks for the replies. Think I will be in the market for a 200mm 2.8 or 60-250 if my tests confirm my suspicions Although I am quite happy with my 70-200mm MKI I have the 60-250mm coming today as it seems a better focal length for me even if it is a bit slower.

05-08-2009, 07:43 AM	#11
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	My significant other would have kittens if I didn't get rid of one before buying another.. not so close together anyway.

05-08-2009, 09:11 AM	#12
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Originally posted by MrMuz My significant other would have kittens if I didn't get rid of one before buying another.. not so close together anyway. Do what I did ... just don't tell her

05-10-2009, 01:31 PM	#14
MrMuz Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 31 Original Poster	don't know why that link won't show up... here it is Picasa Web Albums - Marcel

05-10-2009, 01:40 PM	#15
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	I dont think the lighting helps your shot at all but if that was my lens I would be taking it back to where I bought it from asap. The shot I posted for you to comapre with wasnt even on a tripod but handheld. There you go, displayed on the forum