[Ash]

We might be just putting these lenses through a bit of a torture test and expecting a better result.
In any case, thanks for the input - both 70-200s are still fine pieces of engineering.

It all comes down to preferences again: HSM vs screw-drive AF, TC useability, sharpness wide open...

[deadwolfbones]

Yeah.

Sorry about the slowness in posting the pics. I have about 16gb of RAWs to process and every time I look at the SD cards a little shiver runs down my spine.

I got my Sigma 70-200mm HSM II earlier this week. Works well.

[kenyee]

and scratches in the coating. Attached is a pic for the curious. At least the bubbles aren't as bad as the first copy
It's still going back and I'm asking for a refund this time...

Attached Images

 

[Ash]

Might be hit and miss with this lens unfortunately.
Hukannen's copy seems quite sharp - hopefully this will continue to do so.
kenyee, this is sad to see - again, and you're not the only one.
It has the potential to be one solid telezoom.
Shame.

I also looked at my front element and everything seems to be like it should, no oddities. Same applies to images. Naturally I did sharpen them a bit in post-processing, but in general they looked pretty much the same before the post processing. I did have some missed shots, a lot actually with the first action batch, but it had more to do with my skills, steadiness and the less than stellar AF-C mode. So I wouldn't attribute the issues I've faced with the lens with the lens itself, but as issues with either the body or with the camera operator.

[deadwolfbones]

Here are the f/2.8 shots from my recent lunchtime walkabout with the lens:

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 Samples - deadwolfbones' Photos

Some 200mm f/2.8 shots:











50 shots at various FL's in the gallery.

[Ash]

Thanks for these posts - only the slightest of hazy softness evident in the images apart from the first one, which seems tack sharp.
Indeed a winner - better keep that one, mate!

[photogerald]

To Ash - sorry to hear about your troubles, and I hope the Tamron gives you many years of good service!

I actually found this thread after doing a search on the Sigma 70-200, as I came across a used one recently (the original, non-macro non-DG version). This lens seems to be held in very high regard, with some folks here (such as roentarre) comparing it favourably with the FA*80-200. And even on other non-Pentax forums I see similar opinions, with comparisons even being made to Canon's best L glass.

It seems that the addition of 'macro' in the newer versions has compromised performance wide-open and at close distances, as you've observed and also as noted by the dpreview review. That and perhaps the later model is also somewhat prone to sample variation.

Truth be told, I had never originally considered this lens until I came across that particular one. After doing some research, I must say that I'm quite surprised by its potential. Hopefully I'll get to try it out soon.

Regards

[jenko]

I got mine delivered late yesterday and snapped off about 40 odd shots in a variety of scenarios this afternoon to make sure the lens didn't immediately suffer from any issues pointed out in this informative thread. I even put on a 77mm sigma filter as soon as it came out of the box.

What I can say is so far I'm pretty impressed, although it's a heavy beast, not out of balance though with my k20d with grip, but i'm so use to shooting wide angle gig's so this is going to be a bit of a learning curve. Looking forward to some sporting shoots coming up where the HSM will "hopefully" shine.

I'll try to post some of the test shots once i've cleared some space in my ftp.

[photogerald]

Ash, I was just looking over your website and noticed that you also shoot with the DA55-300 - would you mind telling me how your new Tamron compares at similar apertures and focal lengths? In otherwords, is there an obvious advantage to the Tamron on APS-C aside from the fact that it can go to f2.8? Thanks!

[Ash]

Thanks for the comments.
The old 70-200 is a keeper - hope to see some of your results to complement some of those already posted.
Jenko, good to hear yours looks good.

As for my 55-300, it is not in the same league as the 70-200s. Comparisons would be unfair, but even at the same apertures, 70-200 images still come out more brilliant, needing less PP to bring out the best of the images it produces.

Having said that, I am amazed by what the 55-300 is capable of producing, even at MFD. Remember that the Tamron has no trouble getting very sharp images at the 55-300's full stretch (f/4.5, 200mm, 1.4m subject distance). And at f/8, the differences become less noticeable, but I still favour the 70-200's microcontrast - colours are brilliant in both. IMO, the 55-300 is worth more than it's being sold for.

[deadwolfbones]

Agree entirely on that. I've considered reselling the Sigma many times because the 55-300 is so good except in those low light situations where you really need the 2.8.

[deadwolfbones]

Thanks for these posts - only the slightest of hazy softness evident in the images apart from the first one, which seems tack sharp.
Indeed a winner - better keep that one, mate!

Yeah, I'm pleased with it overall, though I have to admit I'm tempted to sell it and try the Tamron.

[manishved]

Just sent you a PM.....

Yeah, I'm pleased with it overall, though I have to admit I'm tempted to sell it and try the Tamron.