DSLRUsers.com

Here's a shot for Chris, taken today at an indoor dog show. Lighting conditions were not good, so almost all of my shots were at ISO 1600, f/2.8. I wanted to test for noise and my limits for hand held shots, without VR or flash. I lost quite a few to camera shake, because of slow shutter speed at times.

This shot is straight out of the camera, except for resizing and sharpening.

Nikon D70, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF
1/250s f/2.8 at 165.0mm ISO 1600 hand held

That is one ugly mutt, but beautifully captured.

It also shows, when exposed correctly, noise is not an issue at high ISOs.

I have to disagree there Onyx, while it doesn't look like a noisey image, what you have to take into account is the downsampling to a smaller resolution plays a large factor in reducing the amount of noise.

I'd like Kerry to put up a link to the image at the original size for noise inspection

Bleh, resizing...

Also Kerry, you're persuading Chris more into Sigma glass. He should have got the Nikon 80-200 at that comparable price!


[/me waits for D70forum to crash.]

Kerry - this shot is a classic example of why I chose to get this lens. Thank you for posting

kipper wrote:I have to disagree there Onyx, while it doesn't look like a noisey image, what you have to take into account is the downsampling to a smaller resolution plays a large factor in reducing the amount of noise.

I'd like Kerry to put up a link to the image at the original size for noise inspection

heh, noise inspection. Is that like a short arm inspection?

Actually, I don't think you can quantify the noise that easily, nor do I think downsizing matters all that much. IME, a properly and evenly exposed image, with no deep shadows, like the one I posted, will still have noise, but it will not be as apparent as an image that is underexposed and has a higher contrast between the background and subject.

Uneven exposures, such as when the subject is properly exposed, but has deep shadows in the background that are underexposed, will have more readily apparent noise.

Of course, when the whole frame is underexposed, that's when you have the most apparent noise in an image.

sirhc55 wrote:Kerry - this shot is a classic example of why I chose to get this lens. Thank you for posting

You're wecome, Chris. I took another 200+ shots today with this lens and will post more later on. IMO, it's a good substitute for the more expensive Nikkors. I know that's blasphemy, but when you're stretching a budget, sometimes you gotta drink beer instead of scotch....

Absolutely Kerry - my research involved searching the web for comparisons between the Nikkor and the Sigma shot by real people in real situations.

pbase provided the answer. I was able to look at what people had produced with both lenses and I decided that the Sigma shooters (in the main) had captured pics that illustrated the quality of the lens. On the other hand, the Nikkor shooters selection of shots was not inspiring enough to go that way. Technical details, as such, do not mean that much when it comes to glass. We have, on this forum people using the 70-300G - some of the shots have shown this lens to be below average, but in the hands of others it has proven to be a supern lens - in the end it is not the glass but the person with their finger on the shutter and their eye on the subject that makes for the photograph.

Keep posting Kerry, I love your work

Just want to add my 2 cents.

My only Sigma lens is 12-24 and what I found recently - it produces less of chromatic abberations than my two Nikon zooms (kit and 80-400) when, in theory, wide angle lens should produce more of CA

Interesting, so this lens is the one birdy is selling for $1100AU?
Does this also have a vr type technology?

Kipper - no VR on this lens. Although the VR technology is superb and the Nikon 70-200VR is already a legend there are times when I feel that I want to go back to the fundamentals of photography and try to get the shots I want without the help of technology - plus it’s a lot cheaper

It's just I noticed Kerry said without VR. It sounded like she switched it off

Kerry was illustrating what can be achieved when you don’t have VR and a flash - the one thing I noticed time and time again about the Sigma 70-200 is the amazing sharpness of this lens

Hey you don't have to try and fight your Sigma crusade with me. I'm selling a Sigma lens due to the fact I no longer need it. However it's never disappointed me quality wise.

sirhc55 wrote:Kerry was illustrating what can be achieved when you don’t have VR and a flash - the one thing I noticed time and time again about the Sigma 70-200 is the amazing sharpness of this lens

What's about the Nikon 80-200 AF-D with lens collar? is it make difference?

Kipper - I am on no crusade I have spent years using all manner of lenses, especially Nikon. Today, I have to be more prudent in my purchases as I can no longer afford my caviar tastes of past years. This in itself is not a restriction with the internet, as one can can search for bargains (like on this forum with one benevolent patron) and make choices based on the best available within the price bracket one is willing to spend.


By prudent spending I may be able to get the 2Dx - who knows

sirhc55 wrote:Kerry was illustrating what can be achieved when you don’t have VR and a flash - the one thing I noticed time and time again about the Sigma 70-200 is the amazing sharpness of this lens

Hi

I agree completely with you. I had this lens while I was a canon user. Very sharp, highly constrasty and warm colours. It is very bit as good as the Canon L lens (luxury, professional series). I sold it as my skills was not up to it. The lens is quite heavy. The HSM AF beats Nikon AF except for AFS. At the end of the day, it is the photographer's skill that counts. I am looking into buying this lens again.

cheers.

Arthur

The HSM AF beats Nikon AF except for AFS

Does Nikon has the 70-200 in AF-D or Non AF-S version
Here's the Nikon range:

- 80-200 D earlier version (Sold to MCWB)
- 80-200 AF-D Second version
- 80-200 AF-S latest but it's now discontinued