Sigma 70-200mm HSM personal IQ test

**Ash** · 09-04-2009, 01:47 PM

Lucky you.
You've got yourself a decent lens.
70mm at f/2.8 was still a challenge for my copy.
Serial no. on it is 10247532, but bought brand new - couldn't see any obvious physical defects to the front or rear elements, but the results were what mattered to me.

Well, pentaxman, if the results come out as I've got them here, they seem unacceptable to me whether or not others have similar results at f/2.8 200mm, particularly as the corner sharpness does not improve impressively even at f/5.6.

Shipping back to B&H is expensive, in the order of $60, and I've done it once already for the defective Tamron, but wouldn't hesitate to send this one back as well if I know it should be better.

I appreciate you posting some sample images Denis. I'd be glad to see them.
Thanks all for your contributions.

Mike.P® · 09-04-2009, 02:31 PM

When I was looking for a 70-200mm f2.8 I was undecided between the Tamron and Sigma but read the Sigma had the exact same problems you are experiencing now.
I decided to buy a MKI version in the end as I thought it had better IQ at 200mm and also that the Sigma teleconverters work properly on the Non HSM versions.

Test shot at 200mm f2.8 followed by crop.

**Ash** · 09-04-2009, 02:39 PM

I'm afraid your copy is soooo poor, Mike.
Give it to me now!

Yep, there's no way this new and improved HSM version could give me a result like that - and it appears that this is a reasonably close focus shot too.

You've got yourself a stellar lens, mate.
Thanks for sharing these results.

**pentaxman** · 09-04-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Lucky you.
Well, pentaxman, if the results come out as I've got them here, they seem unacceptable to me whether or not others have similar results at f/2.8 200mm, particularly as the corner sharpness does not improve impressively even at f/5.6.

What I was getting at was returning for exchange vs. refund. I would return it one way or another.

Since shipping is so expensive to Aus. I would seriously consider getting a refund instead of an exchange.

I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one.

B&H was fabulous about exchanging lenses and eventually giving me a refund. I did not pay any shipping.

kenyee · 09-04-2009, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by pentaxman

I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one.

Sounds like the joy I had trying to get a Tamron 28-75. Massive halos on the 1st one at 75/2.8. Really bad FF at 28/2.8 on the 2nd. Third still had some FF at 28/2.8 but was the best of the lot but was obviously a returned lens by someone who smokes (sticky tar residue on box and everything inside wasn't in the right place). B&H took care of shipping on all three.
Sometimes it feels like Tamron/Sigma roulette

deadwolfbones · 09-04-2009, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by pentaxman

I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one.

Just out of curiosity, why not keep the second one and immediately send it in for service?

**pentaxman** · 09-04-2009, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Just out of curiosity, why not keep the second one and immediately send it in for service?

I thought that the 3rd one would be the charm. I was wrong - If I had to do it over, I probably would have kept the second one and had it fixed. I hate to buy a new lens knowing it needs repair, though.

Tom

Denis · 09-04-2009, 06:21 PM

Here are, as previously posted, some images using mine. They were taken at F3.2 but still show the IQ. One is the full image while the other is a 100% crop. They are not my best. I rarely shoot below F4. First one is 200mm f3.2 and second is 70 f3.2.

flash1100 · 09-04-2009, 06:47 PM

Sorry to hear you are not happy with your Sigma. I purchased mine in Melbourne in November last year (Michaels) for $949. I very happy with it. Yes it can be soft @ 200 mm.

Some I took shortly after I bought it home at 200 mm f2.8 Exif Intact

This one is similar to the first one but at f8 - much sharper

designinme_1976 · 09-04-2009, 11:17 PM

I had the MK1 Version when I shot Canon. The funny thing, I was testing it against the Canon 70-200 F4 L. Actually, my intent was to purchase the Canon 70-200 F4L, but it was producing pictures at F4 ( wide open for that lens ) that are very similar to the OP's unsharp wide open simga shots. I was just shooting in the parking lot of the camera dealer.

So.. frustrated, I grabbed the Sigma 70-200 2.8.. and wide open it blew away the Canon 70-200 F4L ~ So I went with the Siggy.

Obviously the MK1 version looks sharper than this, but a few things. First, i am not aware of the close focusing limit, but I think 3 meters was it.. something around that.. so if testing shots make sure you are further away from your subject, just to rule out being too close. I remember on my copy, that if I was too close, or right on the edge of the minimum focusing distance to subject, the lens/camera combo would still lock focus. I think like all brands.. Canon included, copy variation is becoming more of an issue when we can blow up a 15 MP image. Back in the days of film, lenses could get away with more issues and never be seen.

I would try another copy, or send it in for repair. Really is crummy that quality control isn't better, sigma makes some great glass.

**Ash** · 09-05-2009, 02:51 PM

I'm now resolved to the fact that I'd like a 70-200 but prefer the IQ I experienced with the Tammy. So Sigma's going back for the Tammy again - and if the sticky lever issue rears its ugly head again (hopefully in the first year) I'll be covered by international service.

Close focusing is not the main reason I wanted one of these, but would be good to have a decent image at 200mm from 2m away...

Thanks all for your input.
Will be in touch again later with more...

nobbsie · 09-05-2009, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by designinme_1976

Obviously the MK1 version looks sharper than this, but a few things. First, i am not aware of the close focusing limit, but I think 3 meters was it.. something around that.. so if testing shots make sure you are further away from your subject, just to rule out being too close. I remember on my copy, that if I was too close, or right on the edge of the minimum focusing distance to subject, the lens/camera combo would still lock focus. I think like all brands.. Canon included, copy variation is becoming more of an issue when we can blow up a 15 MP image. Back in the days of film, lenses could get away with more issues and never be seen.

It's really interesting that you mention that, I have the Mark I lens (no digital coatings with a minimum focus distance of 1.8m). When close to the near limit I get soft images if I'm over 180mm, sometimes with halos not dis-similar to the OP. If I move a few meters back then there is nothing to complain about in terms of sharpness wide-open.

**Ash** · 09-05-2009, 06:51 PM

I think it's reasonable for a lens stretched to its limits - for this one 200mm wide open at or near MFD - to exhibit some image softness/haloing, but should quickly be corrected by relieving it from MFD.

In my own case, the haloing disappeared by f/4 but corner softness continued even at f/5.6, and by f/8 it was mainly gone. IMO, I don't buy lenses just to use them at their optimal MTF range - so would need them to perform reasonably well wide open.

nobbsie · 09-05-2009, 07:20 PM

I completely agree, there's no point carrying a heavy 200mm f/2.8 when it's unusable wide-open as your copy seems to be.

I guess that the old saying that there's "no free lunch" is true. Zooms will always be a compromise and it seems everytime a lens gets re-hashed with a macro function the reviews usually favour the older model in terms of image quality.

**Ash** · 09-05-2009, 07:24 PM

I also have another query if anyone with the HSM version would like to comment on...

My copy, although apparently in focus without AF adjustment at f/4 and above, exhibited obvious FF at f/2.8. This could not be corrected with AF adjustment. In fact, I could not see any significant difference in focusing with +10 and -10 for this lens.

Any one experienced the same issue?

I tried the same thing on my DA* 16-50 to see if another HSM/SDM lens had the same issue. Nope - the function adjusts its focus quite clearly. But not with the 70-200...

09-04-2009, 06:21 PM	#38
Denis Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St-Albert, Alberta, Canada Posts: 330	Here are, as previously posted, some images using mine. They were taken at F3.2 but still show the IQ. One is the full image while the other is a 100% crop. They are not my best. I rarely shoot below F4. First one is 200mm f3.2 and second is 70 f3.2. Last edited by Denis; 09-15-2009 at 04:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Sigma AF 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM	Tommot1965	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-05-2010 01:12 AM
SIGMA 50-200mm F4-5.6 DC OS HSM	spanky66d	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	09-22-2010 07:23 AM
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 HSM is here	Snapshot12	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	09-11-2008 06:17 PM

09-04-2009, 01:47 PM	#31
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	Lucky you. You've got yourself a decent lens. 70mm at f/2.8 was still a challenge for my copy. Serial no. on it is 10247532, but bought brand new - couldn't see any obvious physical defects to the front or rear elements, but the results were what mattered to me. Well, pentaxman, if the results come out as I've got them here, they seem unacceptable to me whether or not others have similar results at f/2.8 200mm, particularly as the corner sharpness does not improve impressively even at f/5.6. Shipping back to B&H is expensive, in the order of $60, and I've done it once already for the defective Tamron, but wouldn't hesitate to send this one back as well if I know it should be better. I appreciate you posting some sample images Denis. I'd be glad to see them. Thanks all for your contributions.

09-04-2009, 02:31 PM	#32
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	When I was looking for a 70-200mm f2.8 I was undecided between the Tamron and Sigma but read the Sigma had the exact same problems you are experiencing now. I decided to buy a MKI version in the end as I thought it had better IQ at 200mm and also that the Sigma teleconverters work properly on the Non HSM versions. Test shot at 200mm f2.8 followed by crop.

09-04-2009, 02:39 PM	#33
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	I'm afraid your copy is soooo poor, Mike. Give it to me now! Yep, there's no way this new and improved HSM version could give me a result like that - and it appears that this is a reasonably close focus shot too. You've got yourself a stellar lens, mate. Thanks for sharing these results.

09-04-2009, 02:43 PM	#34
pentaxman Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	Originally posted by Ash Lucky you. Well, pentaxman, if the results come out as I've got them here, they seem unacceptable to me whether or not others have similar results at f/2.8 200mm, particularly as the corner sharpness does not improve impressively even at f/5.6. What I was getting at was returning for exchange vs. refund. I would return it one way or another. Since shipping is so expensive to Aus. I would seriously consider getting a refund instead of an exchange. I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one. B&H was fabulous about exchanging lenses and eventually giving me a refund. I did not pay any shipping.

09-04-2009, 03:00 PM	#35
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by pentaxman I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one. Sounds like the joy I had trying to get a Tamron 28-75. Massive halos on the 1st one at 75/2.8. Really bad FF at 28/2.8 on the 2nd. Third still had some FF at 28/2.8 but was the best of the lot but was obviously a returned lens by someone who smokes (sticky tar residue on box and everything inside wasn't in the right place). B&H took care of shipping on all three. Sometimes it feels like Tamron/Sigma roulette

09-04-2009, 03:19 PM	#36
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by pentaxman I bought 3 Tamron 70-200 F2.8s from B&H. The first one was decentered, the second one had a sticking aperture and the third one was decentered. I eventually gave up. The second lens (with the sticky aperture) was astoundingly good at all apertures and focal lengths - I wish I could have kept that one. Just out of curiosity, why not keep the second one and immediately send it in for service?

09-04-2009, 06:04 PM	#37
pentaxman Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Just out of curiosity, why not keep the second one and immediately send it in for service? I thought that the 3rd one would be the charm. I was wrong - If I had to do it over, I probably would have kept the second one and had it fixed. I hate to buy a new lens knowing it needs repair, though. Tom

09-04-2009, 06:47 PM	#39
flash1100 Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Perth West Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 97	Sorry to hear you are not happy with your Sigma. I purchased mine in Melbourne in November last year (Michaels) for $949. I very happy with it. Yes it can be soft @ 200 mm. Some I took shortly after I bought it home at 200 mm f2.8 Exif Intact This one is similar to the first one but at f8 - much sharper

09-04-2009, 11:17 PM	#40
designinme_1976 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Dayton Ohio Posts: 132	I had the MK1 Version when I shot Canon. The funny thing, I was testing it against the Canon 70-200 F4 L. Actually, my intent was to purchase the Canon 70-200 F4L, but it was producing pictures at F4 ( wide open for that lens ) that are very similar to the OP's unsharp wide open simga shots. I was just shooting in the parking lot of the camera dealer. So.. frustrated, I grabbed the Sigma 70-200 2.8.. and wide open it blew away the Canon 70-200 F4L ~ So I went with the Siggy. Obviously the MK1 version looks sharper than this, but a few things. First, i am not aware of the close focusing limit, but I think 3 meters was it.. something around that.. so if testing shots make sure you are further away from your subject, just to rule out being too close. I remember on my copy, that if I was too close, or right on the edge of the minimum focusing distance to subject, the lens/camera combo would still lock focus. I think like all brands.. Canon included, copy variation is becoming more of an issue when we can blow up a 15 MP image. Back in the days of film, lenses could get away with more issues and never be seen. I would try another copy, or send it in for repair. Really is crummy that quality control isn't better, sigma makes some great glass.

09-05-2009, 02:51 PM	#41
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	I'm now resolved to the fact that I'd like a 70-200 but prefer the IQ I experienced with the Tammy. So Sigma's going back for the Tammy again - and if the sticky lever issue rears its ugly head again (hopefully in the first year) I'll be covered by international service. Close focusing is not the main reason I wanted one of these, but would be good to have a decent image at 200mm from 2m away... Thanks all for your input. Will be in touch again later with more...

09-05-2009, 06:24 PM	#42
nobbsie Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 142	Originally posted by designinme_1976 Obviously the MK1 version looks sharper than this, but a few things. First, i am not aware of the close focusing limit, but I think 3 meters was it.. something around that.. so if testing shots make sure you are further away from your subject, just to rule out being too close. I remember on my copy, that if I was too close, or right on the edge of the minimum focusing distance to subject, the lens/camera combo would still lock focus. I think like all brands.. Canon included, copy variation is becoming more of an issue when we can blow up a 15 MP image. Back in the days of film, lenses could get away with more issues and never be seen. It's really interesting that you mention that, I have the Mark I lens (no digital coatings with a minimum focus distance of 1.8m). When close to the near limit I get soft images if I'm over 180mm, sometimes with halos not dis-similar to the OP. If I move a few meters back then there is nothing to complain about in terms of sharpness wide-open.

09-05-2009, 06:51 PM	#43
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	I think it's reasonable for a lens stretched to its limits - for this one 200mm wide open at or near MFD - to exhibit some image softness/haloing, but should quickly be corrected by relieving it from MFD. In my own case, the haloing disappeared by f/4 but corner softness continued even at f/5.6, and by f/8 it was mainly gone. IMO, I don't buy lenses just to use them at their optimal MTF range - so would need them to perform reasonably well wide open.

09-05-2009, 07:20 PM	#44
nobbsie Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 142	I completely agree, there's no point carrying a heavy 200mm f/2.8 when it's unusable wide-open as your copy seems to be. I guess that the old saying that there's "no free lunch" is true. Zooms will always be a compromise and it seems everytime a lens gets re-hashed with a macro function the reviews usually favour the older model in terms of image quality.

09-05-2009, 07:24 PM	#45
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920 Original Poster	I also have another query if anyone with the HSM version would like to comment on... My copy, although apparently in focus without AF adjustment at f/4 and above, exhibited obvious FF at f/2.8. This could not be corrected with AF adjustment. In fact, I could not see any significant difference in focusing with +10 and -10 for this lens. Any one experienced the same issue? I tried the same thing on my DA* 16-50 to see if another HSM/SDM lens had the same issue. Nope - the function adjusts its focus quite clearly. But not with the 70-200...