hey guys, i picked up this lens last week, and while work and the weather has stopped me from really getting out there with this lens, i've managed to get my head around a few of it's quirks.
but for starters, this is a great lens, with a fantastic walking around zoom range, and for it's price, definitely worth it in my opinion. the lens is equipped with a rather good Optical Stabilisation mechanism, but no quiet motor mechanism, like the USM found in newer canon lens.
this lens is by no means a fast lens, and the focus mechanism is slower than expected, but not unbearable, however, i believe some of this is due to the focus detection found in teh 400D, as the focus is faster on the 40D body. the focus system is also rather noisy, but again, not unbearable.
as for quality, i know that sigma can and does have some quality control issues at times, and some of that has crept into the incarnation of this lens. it is reasonably soft at the wide end, but makes up for it by being sharp at teh full zoom end. I've also noticed some CA towards the edges of the images at the wide end and with a wide aperture, but this is avoidable with careful composition and camera settings.
one other thing to note also is that i've found the colours to be alot more vibrant and better saturated than my other lens'
attached is two example photos out of this lens, they are 100% crops, with no PP, and some jpeg compression.
i have one for my nikons, they are a pretty nice lens.
Its undoubtedly a great universal lens for almost any happy snap situation!
I've found sigma lenses are great for the price... $1090 for my sigma 170-500 F/5.6~F/6.3 APO has to be one of the best photography purchases I've ever made. also the 10-20!
and after the macro, do not fool yourself! you know you want a 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS (IS is for sissies who cant support the weight of a camera and lens and costs another grand...)
and after the macro, do not fool yourself! you know you want a 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS (IS is for sissies who cant support the weight of a camera and lens and costs another grand...)
The non-IS lenses compared to the same IS lenses, such as the Canon 70-200 F2.8L and the 70-200 IS F2.8L, will actually be slightly faster (OK, maybe only 1/10 of an f-stop, but it still is...) as there is less glass in the way and also have better resolution and contrast for the same reason.
Yeah.. I had a 70-200 2.8L IS, my mate still has his 70-200 2.8 non IS. On the same tripod, same camera same settings, jumping from one lens to the other in varying lighting conditions (during the course of twilight through to night) neither of us could pick the difference in images. (Camera was a 5D as we didnt think that the 350D I had would be sensitive enough to detect any difference.)
I dont mean to sound argumentative, that was just the results of the tests we did... we also tested them hand held at sporting events (V8 supercars) was a cloudy overcast day so lighting wasnt favorable, again couldn't notice a difference...
Just the results I've seen using the two lenses side by side comparatively