vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
 ·ProLog
| new Sigma 70-200 DG macro
yes,yes, I know it's not a macro, not what I want it for.
There's rumours flying on pricing, saying it's going to be "a lot more" than the current model DG. Anyone seen any prices? or even seen it for sale?
Sigma claim "refined optics" did not think the old DG was that bad? |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC | The old 70-200 was soft when wide open in the 135-200mm range. If they fix that, this lens will be on par with top brand glass. |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs: 
| reply to vapochilled
Actually, they are pretty on par with the top end glass now, while a tiny bit soft 135-200 they are just the opposite of the L glass which is softer from 70-135 then the Sigma. Here is a good head to head comparison »www.pbase.com/lightrules/70200exl
Maybe you got a very soft copy as well. I never saw a huge decrease in the 3 copies I have used.
--
My Pbase Gallery
What is RSD? |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| I didn't own the DG version, but as I understood it, the first DG version differed only in the coatings from the non-DG. My copy was tack sharp in the 70-135 range at all apertures, and also tack sharp in the 135-200 range from f/4 on. But at f/2.8 it was soft. It was possible to sharpen it, and in-camera JPEG processing would go some way towards alleviating the problem. My judgment comes from observing RAW files. That is not to say that it is a perfectly fine lens, and very good value for money.
As for the comparison to L glass, I am happy concede that it can very well be superior. The gold standard, as everybody knows, is Minolta G glass! 
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| said by Mauricio9  :I didn't own the DG version, but as I understood it, the first DG version differed only in the coatings from the non-DG. My copy was tack sharp in the 70-135 range at all apertures, and also tack sharp in the 135-200 range from f/4 on. But at f/2.8 it was soft. It was possible to sharpen it, and in-camera JPEG processing would go some way towards alleviating the problem. My judgment comes from observing RAW files. That is not to say that it is a perfectly fine lens, and very good value for money. As for the comparison to L glass, I am happy concede that it can very well be superior. The gold standard, as everybody knows, is Minolta G glass! lol
I read a review (in Greman) that said the latest DG was on par with the Nikon 70-200 vr in sharpness! I can't quite bring myself to believe that, while the VR is clearly not in G lens territory
I just don't know if I should hold the trigger and wait to see what this new Sigma looks like or just get the VR. |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| If VR matters to you to any significant extent, there is no point in waiting for the sigma. If you couldn't care less about VR, there is something to say about a $1,000 difference. As all things in life, you are probably somewhere in between...
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| reply to vapochilled
Another point where softness somewhere along the range bites is when you attach a teleconverter. I had a 1.4x Sigma APO dedicated (matched TC). Even though it was specifically engineered for my lens, it introduced some additional softness. With the reduction in light intake, it meant that I had to stop down to f/5.6 (one stop from wide open) in the 110-190mm range, and to f/6.3-f/8 when shooting at 280mm just to be guaranteed sharp output. This, in turn, started to play against sharpnes on its own because of increased camera shake. While this may make sense for the cost, those extra stops can begin to justify some of the price difference in sharp-throughout-the-range-when-wide-open glass.
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| reply to vapochilled
that's the other bug I have, for the same money as the VR, I could get the Sigma 120-300 F2.8, which is by all accounts a great lens.
Vr would be of use at times(of course), but not all the time. Your right, a grand in the pocket would buy a lot of other stuff!
I just wish Sigma would jump on this OS a bit more, instead of playing the "gap fill" game. They can make damn good lenses, they just need to step up to plate a bit more I think.
I suppose, for the amount of times VR would really help, I could rent?
I don't believe it, I've just talked myself out of the VR  
Money saved I could get the sigma 400,lol |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| reply to vapochilled
Ok, so I just called Sigma to find out when where and how much!
They would not comment on price(but sigma4less did).
It's expected to hit the shelves within a few weeks, and be about $60 more than the old DG.
But get this! the old DG is not being phased out, which is great news because it's price can only drop when the new lens comes out.
I'm sorely tempted by the 120-300F2.8 but Macroman made a good point that for the same money I could grab the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-300 F4!!
Sounds like a winner to me!
Now, just need to find a buyer for this Kidney   |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
| Hmmmm... the 100-300 f/4 will overlap a lot with the 70-200 f/2.8...
Why not something along the lines of a 28-105 f/2.8-4 coupled with the 120-300 f/2.8? Huge coverage, fast speeds...
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| said by Mauricio9 :Hmmmm... the 100-300 f/4 will overlap a lot with the 70-200 f/2.8... Why not something along the lines of a 28-105 f/2.8-4 coupled with the 120-300 f/2.8? Huge coverage, fast speeds... I have the EX 10-20(cracking lens btw) I have the stock kit lens which again, takes some great shots. I have the 150macro, so my thought was the 70-200 fast, would be ideal for all but the long stuff, couple with the 1.4 or switch to the 100-300?
I did look at the 80-400, but it's just not what I'm after(now if it was AF-s!)
28-105, I'd not looked at tbh, would be a nice range, sell the kit lens then?
offf for more reading,lol |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
4 edits | Welll, selling the kit lens and going for the 28-105 would do something, but you would be missing something in the 20-28 range, which is a critical one in my opinion. I have a 12-24 and a 28-75, and the long end of the 12-24 sees quite a bit of use. The kit lens is a good complement.
The 100-300 is not much cheaper than the Nikkor 300mm f/4, whcih is a hell of a lens. Since you would have 70-200 covered, you may want to go that route...
On the other hand, I think the following lineup will also be a killer:
10-20
18-70
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro or Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro - both razor sharp.
125-300 f/2.8
and sell the 150 macro.
Between the long end of the kit lens, the macro and the short end of the 125-300 you would be covered for pretty much any situation. And you would have extra money in your pocket to boot.
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs:
| reply to vapochilled
The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 (and the 120-300mm f/2.8) though is actually a bit sharper then most of the primes, yes backwards from the standard, but check it out, that is why I suggested it.
Why would he sell one of the best macro lenses on the market!!!?? The 150/180mm Macro lenses are tops. I own both the 105 and the 150 and will tell you the 150 blows the 105 away in every aspect. With it having HSM it makes a nice prime mid range lens as well. Regardless of focal coverage, downgrading isn't exactly the best approach I don't think.
--
My Pbase Gallery
What is RSD? |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
1 edit | I am not going to argue about macros, but it makes little sense to me to own both a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 100-300 f/4. There's way too much overlap, and none are exactly cheap lenses.
The high road option is to keep what you have and go for the 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 300 f/4. You can get both for the price of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, which is what you started out with.
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| reply to vapochilled
I would not ever sell that 150 macro, it's an amazing lump of glass.
I was just looking over the 18-200 nikon vr, I think Kchaz has one?
Problem is speed! a fast prime would be nice, but I'm a lazy bastard, I need my zooms,lol
the VR would be ok, but I'd need to try one out, before plonking down a grand, on something which I doubt would give better results than than the sigma 70-200 2.8?
Weight saving, yep, it would do that all right, but I'm just not sure at what cost!
Does anyone know how quickly that Nikon comes off it's wide open aperture? I'm guess fairly quickly though VR would help, but not for moving shots.
don't have unlimited funds, so finding the right compromise is important and all these comments are most welcome guys. |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA
·ProLog
| reply to Mauricio9
said by Mauricio9 :I am not going to argue about macros, but it makes little sense to me to own both a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 100-300 f/4. There's way too much overlap, and none are exactly cheap lenses. The high road option is to keep what you have and go for the 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 300 f/4. You can get both for the price of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, which is what you started out with. very true Maurcio, the origonal VR is still looking like a best all round except for the cost of course! splitting into two lenses would allow the wallet to catch it's breath,lol.
I guess I could wait till next year when nikon bring out the 10-400 F2.8 constant VR for $999,lol
Seriously though, the 70-200 sigma, would at least allow me to shoot fast. if not at the high end without a tc.
What about used? my thinking is something like the vr is just too much lens to risk getting used? |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs:
| reply to vapochilled
WTH does overlap matter? The 100-300mm f/4 is one of the best in its range on the market, check out the tests and user posts even in the Canon forums. It would also be far more useful on the camera then a 300mm f/4 fixed lens. A 100-300mm f/4 could save lens changing quite frequently. By many opinions out there it is also sharper then the 300mm primes, so hmmm, again why downgrade or limit yourself?
--
My Pbase Gallery
What is RSD? |
|
Mauricio9
Premium
join:2001-12-04
Vancouver, BC
1 edit | It seems to me that you are reading reviews selectively. I have seen some reviews that put the 100-300 on par with primes, and others that rate it as slightly soft at f/4, and sharp from f/5 on. If I had a 70-200 f/2.8, I wouldn't touch the 100-300 f/4 for shooting in the 100-200 range. That leaves the 200-300 range, where many reviewers pin down what is apparently the only weakness of the lens. If you need to cover the range with a zoom, fine. If all you care about is the 300mm reach, then a prime is the safe way to go.
--
My ShutterPoint gallery
My ImageEvent galleries |
|
Mellow
Premium
join:2001-11-16
Salisbury, MD
 ·HostGator
 ·Cavalier Telephone
1 edit | reply to vapochilled
Depending on what your shooting the 120-300 2.8 is an amazing lens. I have used the non DG ver plenty of times and on some shots it almost comes close to my 300 2.8, almost.
If you shoot sports a fast prime is the way to go.
Edit: Also just wanted to mention if you want to save some $$ and still get a sharp lens go with the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFS.
--
Ocean City, MD Surfing Gallery |
|
vapochilled
Premium
join:2004-11-23
Macungie, PA | reply to vapochilled
the 80-200 is more than the sigma in $$$ right? yet in terms of quality, is there that much between them? I didn't think there was |
|
