Introduction.
Side view |
Backside showing AM/MF switch |
Front element |
Removeable tripod collar |
MTF chart from Sigma |
General information and specifications.
Lens
|
|
Box contents
|
Front and rear caps, users manual, tripod collar, hood and soft case.
|
Cost
|
$949 at time of review, discontinued in 2012.
|
Build quality
|
Very good
|
Additional information
|
Different design than the more expensive Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM
|
Specifications below
|
|
Optical configuration
|
18 elements in 15 groups
|
Angle of view
|
34°-12° full frame, 23°-8° APS-C measured on the diagonal.
|
Aperture
|
9 blades, curved
|
Full frame and APS-C
|
Made for full-frame, but works fine on APS-C. APS-C equivalent, 105-300mm
|
Depth of field and focus scales?
|
Focus distance window, and focal length index marks at 70mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, and 200mm.
|
Minimum focus, image plane to subject
|
38.9″ (988mm)
|
Minimum focus, end of lens barrel to subject
|
29.4″ (747mm)
|
Hard stop at infinity focus?
|
No
|
Length changes when focusing?
|
No |
Focus ring turns in AF?
|
No
|
Filter size
|
77mm
|
Filter ring rotates?
|
No
|
Distance encoder?
|
No
|
Max magnification
|
0.28x, or 1:3.5
|
Min. F/stop
|
F/22
|
Sony teleconverter compatible?
|
No
|
Length changes when zooming?
|
No
|
Dimensions WxL (my measurements)
|
3.4″ x 7.25″ 87mm x 184mm.
|
Maximum extended length (my measurements)
|
7.25″ (184mm)
|
Weight bare (my scale)
|
42.2oz (1196g) bare. Tripod collar 4.9oz (138). Hood, 2.4oz, (68g). All together including caps, hood and collar, 50.5oz (1431g).
|
70mm, mild barrel distortion. |
200mm, mild pincushion distortion. |
70mm F/2.8
|
70mm F/4
|
200mm F/2.8
|
200mm F/4
|
Out of focus background highlights look pretty smooth zoomed out, and the 70mm highlights showing a little blurred point in the middle, visible in the F/2.8 70mm crops, and very minor ringed blur at 70mm, F/4.
70mm F/2.8
|
70mm F/4
|
200mm F/2.8
|
200mm F/4
|
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Full frame results using the Sony A900.
Check out the differences when using a full frame camera below. I’m only pointing out the noticeable issues as compared to the APS-C bodies, so if I don’t show it here, the results are not significantly different enough to warrant posting an additional set of images in this section.
Light fall-off
70mm F/2.8
|
70mm F/4
|
200mm F/2.8
|
200mm F/4
|
Light fall-off is a little stronger with full frame coverage, but only noticeable when the lens is wide open and zoomed out. There is no additional light fall off when using regular thickness filters, such as polarizers, UV protectors etc.
Flare and ghosting issues.
70mm F/5.6
|
70mm F/5.6
|
200mm F/2.8
|
200mm F/5.6
|
I see some green ghosts when the sun is in the image, and some flare when the sun is outside the image. The bottom left shot shows some strong flare even when the sun is far from the frame. A fix for this is holding your hand up to block the sun. The hood works ok, but not as good as you hand.
Full image from A900 below illustrating light fall-off.
This boring full scene shows light fall-off from 200mm, F/2.8. It’s hardly noticeable and poses no problems in my opinion. Shot was taken at 200mm, F/2.8, ISO 200 1/3200sec 0.30ev.
Lateral color fringing.
This full frame 200mm, F/5.6 crop shows somewhat strong color fringing, and was taken from the last 700 pixels of the image on the middle left side. This type of color fringing doesn’t go away as you stop down. Look at the magenta, and to a lesser extent cyan colors along the house corners etc.
Full frame distortion samples next.
Moderate barrel distortion @70mm |
mild to moderate pincushion @105mm |
Moderate to strong pincushion distortion @ 200mm |
There is moderate barrel distortion at 70mm, but it flattens out very quickly, and by 85mm-100mm it turns to pincushion. Thankfully the distortion shape is a simple curve, and is easy to fix with distortion correction sliders.
The Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 HSM II is a lower-cost alternative to the more expensive Sony model, also tested here.
This Sigma fast telephoto zoom lens is very impressive for the price. Build quality is very similar to the Sony, and it offers the same type of fast, almost silent focusing system, which uses a motor inside the lens, and works just as good as Sony’s SSM in my opinion. There are a couple of things missing though, there are no focus hold or focus limiter buttons to speed up focusing in certain situations, but not everyone will miss those items. On the upside, the lens performs very well optically, with good contrast across the frame, especially at the short end, along with relatively low distortion and light fall-off, although color fringing at the long end is quite noticeable in some images.
The Sigma 70-200mm HSM II is very sharp at almost all apertures near the short end, however, as you zoom out near 200mm, the image sides are not quite as sharp as the Sony or Tamron equivalents, but that’s only visible when you display the crops side-by-side as I’ve done here, (see below).
The Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 also tested here performs about the same optically, but doesn’t come close in focusing speed or build quality.
Final thoughts; Sigma’s quality control is awful, I used three lenses for this review, the third lens they sent me was a winner. If you want to try your luck, and are patient, you might wind up getting a good one, at which point you’ll be hard pressed to tell the differences between the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 HSM II and the Sony 70-200mm F/2.8 G, in both sharpness, focusing accuracy and speed. At the time of this review the Sigma is about half the price of the Sony, which makes it a great bargain…..if you get a good one!
Check out the replacement for this discontinued lens; Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 OS HSM reveiw, and price here.
There isn’t much change to see as you stop down, most of the boring crops look the same, and the small differences wouldn’t be noticeable in real use. The mid-section crops above are in the same general area as the corners would be using an APS-C camera.
200mm
The 200mm centers are pretty sharp, even wide open, but as you move towards the sides of the image, resolution and contrast, (which is more noticable) deteriorate. I see an abundance of color fringing in the corners too. The mid-section crops above are in the same general area as the corners would be using an APS-C camera. |