PDA

View Full Version : APO 70-200mm F2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM


PeterD
27th September 2008, 08:43 PM
Has anyone purchased or tried this lens? It seems to be a good bet with f2.8 throughout the zoom range and with MACRO capability. I would be interested in any comments please - price looks very good too.

Peter

PeterD
27th September 2008, 09:44 PM
Shamelessly bumped up as it has been removed less than an hour after posting

Peter

ndl0071
28th September 2008, 07:00 AM
Hi Peter

Sorry no knowedge of this lens, however just noticed this comment recently posted by Nova Invicta on another Sigma thread.

"I stopped by the Sigma 4/3rds stand and I was impressed with the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM lens it feels very balanced on the E-3 and the focus was fast."

Hope this helps

Neil

peak4
28th September 2008, 07:18 AM
This post from the other side of the pond may be of interest, not sure what relevance the skyscraper shot embedded in the various replies. Looks like Fourty Photo uses it as part of his signature.


http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=40830

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=40730&styleid=3

PeterD
28th September 2008, 07:37 AM
Hi Peter

Sorry no knowedge of this lens, however just noticed this comment recently posted by Nova Invicta on another Sigma thread.

"I stopped by the Sigma 4/3rds stand and I was impressed with the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM lens it feels very balanced on the E-3 and the focus was fast."

Hope this helps

Neil

Thanks Neil

This post from the other side of the pond may be of interest, not sure what relevance the skyscraper shot embedded in the various replies. Looks like Fourty Photo uses it as part of his signature.


http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=40830

http://forum.fourthirdsphoto.com/showthread.php?t=40730&styleid=3

Thanks for the links.
What initially attracted me to this lens was the f2.8 aperture through to 200mm and of course the MACRO capability.
I have been very impressed with the Sigma glass and have been looking for bright glass without the costs getting too high. This lens seems to fit the bill quite well. The use of the EC20 converter will be very feasable and the fact its a brighter lens than the normal telephoto focussing should be quite responsive under most light conditions. The 4/3 fit has only just been introduced.

Peter

art frames
28th September 2008, 09:48 AM
Peter

If you are looking for a good macro then I would always prefer a dedicated macro lens and the Sigma 105mm lens would be my suggestion based on my personal experience. With any macro there are two big issues for me. No. 1 - magnification (the 105 gives you 1:1 at min focal dist, from my reading from the Sigma site this lens gives you 1:3.5) and light/speed. Here the 105 could benefit from a faster autofocus at times but it is a F2.8 lens. I wanted the more expensive 150mm Sigma but it was never available. The Oly 50mm I also have and hardly ever use, it is only 1:2 and you need to get much closer even for that.

I looked at the samples of this lens and the lens looks good for telephoto use but could see no macro samples. The reviews look very positive. I would go over to Sigma and try one out. They will be helpful I'm sure.

If I get the 150mm you could buy my 105mm :rolleyes:. It is a cracking lens.

Peter

PeterD
30th September 2008, 07:45 AM
Peter

If you are looking for a good macro then I would always prefer a dedicated macro lens and the Sigma 105mm lens would be my suggestion based on my personal experience. With any macro there are two big issues for me. No. 1 - magnification (the 105 gives you 1:1 at min focal dist, from my reading from the Sigma site this lens gives you 1:3.5) and light/speed. Here the 105 could benefit from a faster autofocus at times but it is a F2.8 lens. I wanted the more expensive 150mm Sigma but it was never available. The Oly 50mm I also have and hardly ever use, it is only 1:2 and you need to get much closer even for that.

I looked at the samples of this lens and the lens looks good for telephoto use but could see no macro samples. The reviews look very positive. I would go over to Sigma and try one out. They will be helpful I'm sure.

If I get the 150mm you could buy my 105mm :rolleyes:. It is a cracking lens.

Peter

Peter

Sorry to make this late reply but I am unsure about the ratios 1:1, 1:2 etc. I agree this lens is quoted as 1:3.5. I was judging it (in my inexperienced way) that the closest focus distance is 30inches through its full focal length to 200mm.

Please help me by explaining the ratios.

Cheers

Peter

art frames
30th September 2008, 08:08 AM
Peter

Sorry to make this late reply but I am unsure about the ratios 1:1, 1:2 etc. I agree this lens is quoted as 1:3.5. I was judging it (in my inexperienced way) that the closest focus distance is 30inches through its full focal length to 200mm.

Please help me by explaining the ratios.

Cheers

Peter

Peter

I lifted this from Wikipedia, not usually my first source but this helps I feel.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macro photography is close-up photography; the classical definition is that the image projected on the "film plane" (i.e., film or a digital sensor) is close to the same size as the subject. On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame. Most 35mm format macro lenses achieve at least 1:2, that is to say, the image on the film is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed. Many 35mm macro lenses are 1:1, meaning the image on the film is the same size as the object being photographed. Another important distinction is that lenses designed for macro are usually at their sharpest at macro focus distances and are not quite as sharp at other focus distances.
In recent years, the term macro has been used in marketing material to mean being able to focus on a subject close enough so that when a regular 64 inch (1510 cm) print is made, the image is life-size or larger. This requires a magnification ratio of only approximately 1:4, more easily attainable by lens makers.

All I would add is that for butterflies, dragonflies and insects I prefer to get the magnification of 1:1 rather than 1:2. It makes a big difference to being able to fill the frame and shoot close up details like the tongue and eyes.

Adding the teleconverter enables me to go just a little beyond 1:1 as in this head and shoulders shot.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/SHD_closeup.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/7741)

Getting into true micro/macro territory really needs bellows or other ways of adding in flexible extension rings, which I haven't done.

ps this is the sigma 105 plus the same teleconverter as you use.

peter

PeterD
30th September 2008, 04:26 PM
Peter,

Thanks for your explanation courtesy of Wikipedia. Thanks also for posting the excellant example. I have e-mailed you.

Peter