I am thinking of buying the Sigma 70 to 200 HSM APO Macro. Any comments from users. How close is the Macro ability in comparison with just dedicated Macro lens?
CreaXion said:How close is the Macro ability in comparison with just dedicated Macro lens?
westwest1 said:if looking for true macro...get a dedicated one better...
CreaXion said:How is this set of lens for normal zoom usage? Does it have the same quality as the 70 to 200 HSM?
westwest1 said:usually macro lens are prime lens...for example Nikkor 105mm VR is going around for $1300 IIRC..quality wise..prime lens wins..
sigma one I was quote 1600++ from MS colour...:sweat:
midicity said:If at $1600, i'd rather get a 2nd hand Canon 70-200mm L. It's about the same price and the optics should be better
I'm using the Sigma non macro version and I find it good enough for my usage .CreaXion said:For Nikon Mount only
CreaXion said:Thanks for all the feedback. Already purchased the lens. Fantastic lens. Since I own both Canon and Nikon systems. The Sigma's focussing is faster than the F4L 70 to 200 in my opinion. Not sure whether fair comparison or not as the sigma is mounted on my Nikon's system
ykgen said:then which one is faster if the sigma compared to nikkor AFD 80-200 f2.8 and also AFS 70-200 f2.8?
ExplorerZ said:AFS 70-200 > Sigma 70-200 > AFD 80-200
erm afd is only slower by very slight bitykgen said:oh.. so afd is the slowest af lens.. :sweat:
in term of pix quality? which one is faster?
ExplorerZ said:erm afd is only slower by very slight bit
in terms of pic quality... how can it be fast? :sweat:
anyway its AFS 70-200 >= AFD 80-200 > Sigma 70-200
taking that all are good copies and at f2.8