Evaluation: 
Conclusion: Great lens...not a cheap alternative to the Nikon
Review: I was worried when I bouught this lens because I had only tried the Tamron copy, but my only experience with non-Nikon is with Sigma. I LOVE this lens. I got it for shooting sporting events for my university newspaper, and have had no problems in the month that I've had it. It autofocuses faster than the Tamron. A monopod isn't necessary because it's such a fast lens. Even at night with stadium lighting, the AF has little trouble.
The best thing I've heard for people wanting to shoot sports since buying this "cheap copy" lens came from a professional on the sidelines the firtst time I used my new lens. He said to my question about the Nikon 70-200mm, "Honestly, I turn the VR off when I'm not doing still portrait shots because it gets out of whack when I start following a moving person."
Made me feel VERY content with my decision to buy the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Tack sharp at f4 and above, excellent bokeh
Review: I see that there is a overall 4 star rating on this lens and that seems a little low to me. I bought this about 2 months ago and have used it for several portrait sessions. I have also used the ridiculously priced Nikkor 70-200 VR. I like the look and feel of the Sigma much better and I think the pictures are as good or better than its more pricey cousin. It doesn't have VR, but honestly, you really should be using a tripod if you think you need VR. Good light, and good technique is how photogs have done it for years. I whole heartily give this lens 5 stars!
Evaluation: 
Conclusion: I like it a lot: great value
Review: I wish I could give it 4.5 stars, because it isn't perfect, but pretty close when considering the price. It is worth every penny I paid. However, it can't compare to the Nikon VR lens (much more $$).
I have used it several times to shoot low light stage productions/dances. Taking hundreds of photos in a night, I haven't had any problems. It does really benefit from a monopod/tripod in these situations. Really, some sort of stabilization is required, so the included tripod mount is a must. Also, the lens is pretty heavy.
I came in to owning a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF (basically the version before Nikon came out with the VR version) a week after I bought my Sigma. I like some characteristics of the Sigma a little better. The macro feature on the Sigma was superior, and the color was a slightly more true when photos were compared side by side (taken with same camera body).
I wish it had a hard case, the soft case doesn't give me a lot of confidence. Nikon's hard case for their lens is really awesome.
The auto focus worked well, fast, and generally accurate. I occasionally have difficulty tracking an object in low light. But not so much that it gets in the way of shooting. I didn't try the Nikon in this setting so I don't know if it would do the same thing. And I never owned a lens at this focal length before these lenses for comparison.
I am very satisfied, but the whole experience lacks that little bit of polish to make it perfect. Given the present alternatives, I would buy this lens again.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Fantastic lens, and an even more fantastic price
Review: I thought about going with a Nikon lens, but after looking at the features and prices, I thought this would be a better option. So far, I'm extremely pleased with it. It's truly sharp, even at 2.8. Focusing is fast and quiet on my D200. I could not be more happy with it. The accessories that came with it -- lens hood and soft case -- are nice touches, too.
And, in this price range, I also appreciate the fact that the focal range starts at 70mm -- and the macro feature works quite well at this range, too.
Evaluation:
Conclusion: Great while it lasted.....
Review: I purchased this lens after reading all of the great reviews and weighing logically the price difference between the nikon 70-200 VR. Picked it up at the southeastern camera only to be disappointed 12 days later. The AF stopped working and it had to be shipped to sigma for repair. I had no time to wait for sigma so I ended up sacrificing the f2.8 and going for the nikon 80-400 VR. I shoot aerials and was planning on putting a teleconverter on the sigma to get me to 400mm at 5.6 anyways. I like the 80-400, except for the minimum distance of focus. I also miss f2.8. But oh well. I am saving money for the Nikon 70-200 VR at the moment.
|
