In the world of professional photography, the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens is one of the kings. No matter if you shoot Canon or Nikon, this is the telephoto lens that most photographers lust after and is the standard against which other telephotos are measured. If you’re not convinced, stop to consider this: Canon makes four different versions of this lens alone; Nikon has one current model; Sigma and Tamron each have a version.
Unfortunately, the top-of-the-line Canon version of this lens, including USM and IS systems, runs as much as a DSLR body. Enter the third party lenses, the Sigma model, which has been around for several years, and the Tamron model, released about a year ago.
The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens is a very attractive alternative to the Canon or Nikon models, mainly because of its price, which is half as much as the afore-mentioned brands, and about $100 less than the Tamron. And along with the price, Sigma delivers a very competent lens, albiet one lacking some of the features of the Canon/Nikon models.
Sigma has a long history of producing good photographic lenses. Opinions vary wildly among photographers – some are Canon/Nikon snobs who only consider lenses made by their camera’s manufacturer, while others are very happy to use third-party lenses while reaping considerable savings. The fact is that having used the Sigma 70-200mm for several years, I can plainly state that it is indeed a solid lens.
The Sigma 70-200mm is well built and feels physically solid in your hand and mounted to the camera. The adjustment rings are responsive but not flaky. Focus, driven by Sigma’s Hypersonic Motor (HSM) drive, is fast and quiet – and provides full-time manual focus ability. And unlike its Canon counterparts, the Sigma actually comes with the necessary accessories, including a padded case, lens hood, and tripod collar.
The constant f/2.8 aperture makes this lens ideal for a variety of uses. For photojournalists/event shooters looking for reach in often poorly lit settings, or for sports photographers in need of faster shutter speeds in mid-range to close quarters, this lens is excellent. It is also very popular with the portraiture crowd, as the combination of the wide aperture and compression effect make for lovely portraits. Combine all those instances and you’ve got yourself a good lens for weddings.
The Sigma model in particular is quite strong. Chromatic aberrations are present in high-contrast areas, but are minimal and easily corrected in post processing. At f/2.8 the lens is a little soft, but by f/4 sharpness is visibly improved and by f/5.6 it is crisp. Frankly, it is a lens that feels good to use and one that you don’t have to worry about getting good images from.
There are, however, a few downsides, the first of which is the lack of a stabilization system. When the 70-200mm was introduced, Sigma didn’t had yet to develop their Optical Stabilizer system, and it’s lack of inclusion in the lens is the leading reason for the price difference between it and the Canon/Nikon models. However, without stabilization, you simply need enough light to get at least 1/160 shutter speed when zoomed to 200mm; even at f/2.8, it’s often necessary to boost the ISO to compensate. (If Sigma were to rework this lens with its OS system while still maintaining a competitive price, I expect it would be a huge hit.)
Second, while 70-200mm is a highly useful range, there are a number of applications where 200mm just isn’t enough. Wildlife photographers, for instance, may be drawn to this lens because of the price, but will quickly find that unless they are photographing buffalo, there isn’t enough reach to fill the frame with, say, a small mammal or bird.
Building on that issue is the Sigma’s terrible performance with the 2x teleconverter. Since the Sigma 2x teleconverter is only $200, it is a logically attractive option for photogs looking to boost the 70-200mm’s range to 140-400mm. Don’t waste your money. While the boost in range does make the lens more useful, the degraded performance is not worth it. Images taken with the teleconverter suffer from a noticeable decrease in quality & sharpness and are afflicted with bad chromatic aberrations. Worse yet, the resulting f/5.6 aperture slows the focus to a painful – and often inaccurate – crawl.
Overall, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is an excellent choice for a photographer needing a competent telephoto with a fast aperture, especially if they want to keep the cost reasonable. Weddings, events, & portraits are all easily and well handled by this lens – so long as there is sufficient light. If you know you’re going to shooting a lot in dim light, however, consider spending more for a model with a stabilizer, or be ready to increase the ISO. I’ve owned mine for years and have always been very pleased with it, although these days I find myself using it infrequently due to a shift in my shooting style. Yet I’m still hesitant to part with it, since I know that as soon as I do, I’ll need it again.
