Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera

I came from owning the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and looking for something better since I do weddings and other events. The Tamron was unusable at f2.8 plus extreme corner unsharpness and lots of chromatic aberration. I was a little bit anxious if the Sigma OS might not be much better. Wrong! This lens is incredibly sharp. Even at f2.8. Even at 200mm. Impressive! - How sharp is it? - At f2.8 it is already very sharp, at any focal length. Viewing the resulting photos in the usual web resolution (up to 900px) you can not see any unsharpness at all. On a 100% view it's getting a little bit softer, but the sharpness is still on par with any (medium-tele to tele, can't compare wide-angles) Nikon glass I have ever shot with wide-open (and that includes e.g. the 50mm f1.4G and 105mm f2.0). Maybe I have the best copy ever produced by Sigma - but what I'm saying is that none of the six prime lenses I ever owned was sharper wide-open. If you stop it down a little bit to f4.0 it gets incredible sharp to a point that results are just limited by my camera sensor's resolution (using it on D300 and now on D700). Corner sharpness: Towards the corners it's getting a little bit softer (affecting roughly the outer 25-30% of the image) but compared to my Sigma & Tamron 17-50mm (which is not a fair comparison though) it is quite acceptable. The corner unsharpness gets more significant the more you zoom in. And on a full frame sensor you will have more corner unsharpness than on a cropped sensor. For most uses of this lens the corner sharpness it not extremely significant. I didn't even notice the unsharpness until using this lens (on D700) for some group pictures at a wedding lately. I guess a prime (if handy) would be my better choice next time but the photos still came out great and the slight unsharpness on the few group pics where people where in the outer lens area are only visible on 1:1 or maybe 1:2 view. - What about the focus? - Quiet. Reasonably fast. Accurate and locks without hunting. Having owned more than a dozen AF lenses in my life, I could not name you one that had a significantly better focus than the Sigma. - Is the optical stabilizer (OS) worth the higher price tag? - A b s o l u t e l y . And when you had the Sigma 70-200 without OS in mind: Sigma redesigned and improved the whole thing. (Google for "dpreview sigma 70-200 OS") It's not just about the OS. But even if, the OS alone is worth every cent. When you press the shutter halfway the picture starts to "glue". I can take pictures with this lens at 200mm down to 1/50 second without blur, could even do some with 1/30 at 200mm (still need a calm hand for that though). For pictures at around 1/200 it significantly helps too to get a much higher keeper rate. - What are the OS settings? - You can switch to: OFF - you should do that for tripod use, otherwise the OS will produce blur 1 - for panning pictures like moving car and cam is following the car 2 - for all other OS use (much more efficient than 1) - Using it for portraits rather than a prime now - I also have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 which makes fantastic pictures but I started to leaving it home and using the 70-200 now for outdoor portrait work like engagement photos. The classic arguments for primes are that they are sharper and faster (wider aperture). I don't see the 85mm at f2.5 being visibly sharper than the 70-200 at f4 (about the very corner sharpness I don't care too much for portrait work either). And for the bokeh, I get more of that at f4 @ 150mm than at f2.5 @ 85mm (I wouldn't use any long lens totally wide open in bright, sunny environment). And about the my-feet-are-my-zoom strategy I just gotta say: the more you zoom in, the more the background gets compressed and the closer it gets. So with a long tele-zoom lens you can adjust your focal length to include more or less of the background and getting background objects closer to your subject (e.g. people standing in front of the Golden Gate Bridge). And that's an important thing to do for your picture composition. You cannot do that with your feet and a prime. So I would say this lens is not only a great choice for doing event and wedding photography, but also for portrait work. It is not cheap but it might be the last lens you ever needed (if you are all-set on wide-angles that is). - Conclusion - I might end up some day with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and keeping the Sigma as a backup (I don't think I will ever sell this beauty!), but no hurry for that: The Sigma is such an amazing lens that I don't feel the urge to step up at the moment. I can just highly recommend it to anyone. It is truly the best lens I ever owned. UPDATE 6/25/2012: Still the best lens I ever owned. Done more than a dozen paid shoots with it including a couple of weddings. The keeper rate of this lens is amazing. I'd say less than 5% of shots taken with it needed to be deleted because of unsharpness etc (the OS is doing such an incredible job). And that includes low light wedding receptions. The lens is exclusively on my D700 and this combination rocks. Wide enough on the 70mm end e.g. for a bride walking down the aisle. If the locations supports it I'm doing all wedding formals (group/family shots) with it too, because the corner unsharpness is very low and better than most other lenses that I carry around with me. For some casual engagement/portrait sessions I took out the Sigma 85 f1.4 instead and loved the creaminess of the bokeh which beats the Sigma 70-200 on an artistic level, while I would still kind of prefer the 70-200 for its zoom-capability (and it also has a nice bokeh, but in a bokeh-contest the 70-200 will lose after a hard decision). I'm protecting it with an Hoya HMC 77mm UV filter, btw - and you should do the same. Don't go with a cheaper filter as it will produce likely ghost reflections, the Hoya never did that to me and the ~$40 investment is a wise choice to protect your multi-coated front element. Anyhow, I hope that your copy of this lens will be as great as mine, maybe I was just lucky. I bought it used on Amazon. UPDATE 12/18/2013: Slightly unrelated, but maybe still interesting for potential buyers: After switching my entire gear from Nikon to Canon, I bought the exact same lens for the Canon mount. Same great results. Love this lens. I would say it is 90% of the quality the Canon 70-200 IS II. Several 2nd shooters working for me at weddings brought their $2k Canon lens and the results weren't better than mine with this Sigma. Conclusion: I will stay with the Sigma 70-200 for a longer time and rather update other lenses first (if I ever need to buy the more expensive 70-200).

This is truly a wonderful camera lens. The 70-200 zoom range is great - I use this primarily when shooting wedding ceremonies. It is also nice on vacation for getting shots of things a little further away, or photographing birds at home. A 400 zoom range would be better, but you lose some aperture abilities there, and I need to be able to shoot in low light. It was tough deciding between this and the longer length, but this ultimately won out because I needed the low light capabilities. Inside of a church, this works great (and outside, of course, it is outstanding). There are two oddities: the zoom is the reverse of every other zoom I own (or have owned). Isn't that odd? I ALWAYS have to think about which way to turn this to zoom - and sometimes that extra second can cause me to miss the shot. Also, if you take the lens hood off and attach it to the lens, you can no longer use the zoom - another oddity! If I ever do take it off, I end up wearing it on my arm like some odd piece of jewelry until I have a chance to get back to my camera bag and stash it. I find the focus is accurate and fast - which I can't say about my Sigma 35mm prime (I despise that thing and that lens almost made me not order this one). But this one has a great focus. It is a heavy lens, and your arms will feel it after an 8-10 hour wedding day, but it takes beautiful photos. I like this also during the reception because I can be further away and still get great shots. I highly recommend this! It is a reasonable price for a nice piece of glass that should last a very long time.

I loved this lens, but I had to return it. Why 5 stars? Well, it's everything I hoped it to be. Incredible sharpness, fast aperture, and $1000 less than the Canon for a [reportedly] very slight decrease in quality. Why did I return it? Two reasons, it's too bulky to travel/have fun with, and I don't need f/2.8. On the first point, I'm well built @ 175lbs 6', and 28 years old. Strong enough to lug around 3.5 pounds. But for my style of photography - hanging out with friends, photographing family, fly-on-the-wall type stuff - it was just too damn big. Every time I pulled it out, I felt like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, casually and awkwardly unsheathing out my huge pipe. I also have a bad back, and I'll be damned if 3.5 pounds at a weird backpack angle doesn't wear me out. Your mileage may vary on this point, but for me, the cost/benefit didn't make sense. On the subject of f/2.8 - I don't have kids, I don't have indoor soccer games to photograph, generally no indoor events where speed at this focal range would be useful (e.g., a house - you have to be across a large room or down a hall for 70-200 to make sense on an APS-C)... I just have no need for it. I convinced myself prior to buying this that I wanted the best, and this is certainly it. But after playing around with it for a few weeks, I realized that I don't need the f/2.8 and I don't need the weight. I ended up with the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM. It's a nice lens, way lighter, less conspicuous, and reportedly sharper (though I can't tell the difference). I also tried the 70-300 f/4.0 - 5.6, and it was OK, but felt too cheap. It was also noticeably less sharp when compared side-by-side with the Sigma & Canon. One last note - I ordered all of these lenses used but 'Like New' from Amazon Warehouse. The lenses I received were in almost-perfect condition, so I highly recommend exploring the "used" options from Amazon Warehouse. That said, when I finally decided on the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS USM, I bought it via Amazon Warehouse. They shipped the non-IS version to me, which is worth about half of what I paid. I calmly but firmly called Amazon, and they agreed to refund full return shipping costs, as well as overnight a brand new 70-200 f/4L IS USM to me, which I received the very next day. To be clear, I paid full price for the f/4L IS, though I saved 7% due to a running promotion - 4% off camera equipment, plus 3% cash back from the Amazon Visa. So it ended up costing the same as the used version due to the savings! But anyway, Amazon agreed to waive the overnight shipping fee on the replacement, which was awesome, so that felt pretty fair. All-in-all, if you are sure that you need f/2.8 and that 3.5 lbs isn't a big deal, then buy this thing and don't look back.

Very good lens for wedding photography.. using this for both dx & fx format Nikon cameras.. it's automatically concerted 90-300 zoom for dx format cameras (I've Nikon D3300 & D5200) & 70-200 for fx format cameras (I've Nikon D610 & D750).. basically this is must have lens for all Nikon users

Very good lens, love it, has OS1 +2 that works awesome in conjunction with the Sigma 2X teleconverter. The only problem is how it is advertised as FLD but the box and lens do not designate it as FLD which caused concern. However, I contacted Sigma and they assured me this is the latest lens and it does use FLD (low-dispersion) glass.

Seit mehr als 10 Jahren fotografiere ich nun schon mit den verschiedensten Kameras und Objektiven und muss sagen, dass ich von dem Sigma 70-200 2,8 OS sehr überrascht war. Warum möchte ich im folgenden kurz erklären. Zunächst einmal sollte man sich die Frage stellen, wofür man diese Linse überhaupt brauchen kann. Es handelt sich um ein Telezoom, welches sehr Lichtstarkt ist und sich somit hervorragend für Sport und Bühnenfotografie eignet. Auch für Protraits und etliche andere Anwendungen stellt das Sigma Objektiv eine tolle Lösung dar, jedoch sollte einem das große Gewicht und die Bauform vor dem Kauf bewusst sein. Verarbeitung: Wie bei jedem Objektiv ist die Verarbeitung ein sehr wichtiger Punkt, da man das Objektiv ständig in der Hand hat und es den üblichen Gebrauch auch überstehen sollte ohne das etwas abbricht oder ähnliches. Mir persönlich gefällt der Weg den Sigma hier gewählt hat. Die Oberfläche ist sehr hochwertig verarbeitet und fühlt sich sehr stabiel an. Das Gehäuse besteht aus sehr robustem Kunststoff, der leicht gummiert ist, was dafür sorgt das, dass Objektiv bestens in der Hand liegt. Für mein Gefühl ist dies zwar anders wie beim Nikon 70-200 2,8 VRII, aber eben nicht schlechter oder besser. Es ist schlicht anders. Im Vergleich - Nikon setzt bei der Verarbeitung auf höherwertige Materialien wie z.B. Metal und Co. Dies ist aber weder ein Vorteil noch ein Nachteil den das Sigma Objektiv hat. Sigma hat hier gespart, aber eben nicht so viel das es billige wirken würde. Das Sigma 70-200 ist sehr robust aber eben nicht aus Metal. Zusätzlich dazu ist das Nikon Objektiv gegen Staub geschützt, was das Sigma Objektiv nicht ist. Dies ist ein klarer Nachteil gegenüber der Nikon Variante. Bildqualität: Zum Vergleich habe ich mir 3 Objektive geholt und diese direkt miteinander verglichen. - Sigma 70-200 2,8 OS - Tamron 70-200 2,8 VC - Nikon 70-200 2,8 VR2 Zunächst einmal ist mir aufgefallen das alle Objektive relativ gleich groß und schwer sind, was vor allem für Nikon ein Pluspunkt ist da dieses aufgrund von Metalverarbeitungen ein höheres Gewicht erwarten lässt. Insgesammt fand ich aber alle Objetive händelbar. Enorme Unterschiede bei der Bildqualität waren an Crop Kameras nicht zu erwarten, jedoch musste ich bei der Linse von Tamron festellen, das diese zum Rand hin leichte unschärfen aufwies, die auch durch abblenden nicht zu beseitigen waren. Die Bildqualität des Sigma Objektivs lässt sich durchaus mit dem "Orginal" von Nikon messen, jedoch ist mir aufgefallen, das der Fokus beim Nikon schon deutlich schneller arbeitet. Zusätzlich dazu war der Fokus (insbesondere) bei wenig Licht bei Nikon viel treffsicherer. Das Sigma tifft den Fokuspunkt auch sehr gut, genehmigt sich aber deutlich mehr Zeit dafür. Scharf oder nicht Scharf: Ja, das ist hier die leidige Frage. Ich konnte in punkto Schärfe keine Unterschiede zwischen Sigma und Nikon erkennen. Beide Bilder waren bis in die Ecken sehr gut und scharf (auch bei 2,8). Das Tamron hingegen hatte ein leichte Unschärfe in den Randbereichen (wirklich nur minimal). Bildstabilisator: Der Stabilisator weist zwei Modi auf (1 - nur vertikal; 2 - vollständige Stabilisierung). Ich persönlich finde das er vergleichbare Arbeit gegenüber dem Nikon Objektiv leistet und somit sehr gut funktioniert. Einziger Unterschied: Man kann kurz vor de Abdrücken ein "wackeln" des Bildes sehen das durch das ausrichten des Stabilisators entsteht. Dies stört nicht und ist auch sonst nicht von belangen, kann aber in sofern iritierend sein, wenn sich das Bild um ca. 1mm verschiebt. Im normalen Nutzungverhalten wird man dies aber kaum bemerken. Fazit: Dieses Objektiv ist für alle die eine bezahlbare lichtstarke Telezoom Lösung suchen sicher eine absolute Empfehlung. Ob der Bildstabilisator wirklich nötig ist, daran scheiden sich die Geister, da man bei viel Licht eh mit kurzen Verschlusszeiten fotografiert und in der Nacht so oder so ein Stativ braucht. Ich persönlicht möchte Ihn nicht mehr missen, da insbesondere in Grenzfällen trotz allem noch scharfe Bilder entstehen, die ansonsten verwackeln würden. Die Lichtstärke von 2,8 ist hervorragend und hat den tollen Effekt das man alles Mögliche wunderbar freistellen kann. Mir persönlich gefallen die Portais die ich mit dieser Linse bisher gemacht habe sehr gut, da man von sehr weit weg noch wirklich tolle scharfe (freigestellte) Bilder machen kann. Alles in allem macht man mit dem Sigma nicht viel falsch, man sollte jedoch vorher darüber nachdenken ob man so viel Gewicht "mitschleppen" möchte. Das Objektiv ist ca. 1,3Kg schwer! Mir ist es das auf jeden Fall wert, da die Bilder um ein vielfaches besser sind und manche Bilder damit überhaupt erst möglich werden. Bühnenfotografie wird ein absoluter Genuss mit dieser Linse, da man die Farben und die (künstliche) Lichtsituation auf der Bühne wunderbar einfrieren kann (siehe Bilder). Nikon oder Sigma oder doch Tamron: Diese Frage ist nicht ganz einfach zu beantworten, da man immer ein tolles Objektiv erhällt. Das Tamron würde ich jedoch ausschließen, da die Bildqualität im vergleich schlechter war wie bei den beiden anderen (siehe oben). Noch dazu kostet es mehr wie das Sigma. Die wahl zwischen Sigma und Nikon ist jedoch nicht so einfach zu bestimmen. Meiner Meinung nach reicht die Fokusgeschwindigkeit vom Sigma in 99,9 Prozent aller Fälle aus (es ist auch schnell, aber nicht ganz so schnell wie das Nikon). Da das Nikon 70-200 2,8 nahezu das doppelte kostet muss jeder selbst wissen ob so viel Geld für ein Metalgehäuse und einen etwas treffsichereren Fokus gerechtfertig ist. Für Profis würde ich hier klar JA sagen, da man mit den Bildern letztlich sein Geld verdient und ein verpasstes Bild verpasstes Geld bedeutet. Für jeden anderen bin ich der Meinung das, dass Sigma Objektiv völlig ausreichend ist um ebenfalls proffionelle Bilder zu schießen. Pro: - Gute Verarbeitung - Exzelente Bildqualität - schneller Fokus (nur Nikon Orginal ist schneller) - Objektivschelle und Gegenlichtblende sind hervorragend verarbeitet Con: - Kein Metalgehäuse Neutral: - Groß und Schwer (weis man vorher) - Für Crop Kameras liegt eine Verlängerung der Gegenlichtblende bei (Gut, aber unpraktikabel - habe an meiner Crop Kamera auch ohne die Verlängerung keine Probleme) - Die beiliegende (sehr gut verarbeitete) Objektivtasche ist gut gemeint, aber wird wohl kaum Verwendung finden, da nur das Objektiv hineinpasst. Wer vor hat das Objektiv zu verleihen, freut sich aber über die Tasche (so wie ich) da man so den Transport sicher gewährleisten kann. Alles in allem ein Spitzenobjektiv zu einem Spitzenpreis. Update: Laut mehreren großen Wahrenhäusern im Internet ist der häufigste Rücksendegrund für dieses Objektiv das Gewicht/die Größe. Somit eventuell ein Blick bei den Amazon Warehouse Deals wert, da es hier oft für ca. 730€ zu haben ist.

If you're debating whether or not the Sigma 70-200 OS is worth your hard-earned cash, or if you're contemplating the leap up to the Canon L equivalent, hopefully this review will put it into black and white for you, as I was under the exact same thought cloud, so here goes: I'll set the layout of the review, first. I'll review the lens based on categories, this will be an impartial review based on my findings. Below each impartial review, I will state how this compares to the Canon 70-200 2.8 mkII IS USM lens. This should satisfy both people wanting to know about this lens, and also how the Canon performs in comparison. ::First Impressions:: The Sigma comes in a very nice black box, which you open to find a small cardboard compartment housing the APS-C hood extender, and beside it rests a very durable lens bag. The lens bag is very well padded, and comes with a strap, should you wish to carry your lens in this manner. Inside the bag is the lens itself. The lens is part of Sigma's EX range, which I think is more of a marketing term than anything, but it does mean that they have to be built to a certain standard. It measures just under 20cm long without the hood, which isn't too bad, with the hood on its just over 30cm in length. It's also quite heavy, but not heavy enough to make you ache. --Compared to-- The Canon lens comes in a MUCH bigger box. Almost twice the size in terms of volume. Inside is very much the same configuration except the lens bag is off-white. The canon lens is physically much larger, and feels heavier. In terms of first impressions, the Sigma is very much on par with the Canon. Both have wow factor. ::Build Quality and Ergonomics:: The Sigma lens has a plastic outer barrel, but this isn't cheap feeling at all. it's incredibly sturdy and the zoom and focus rings have the nicest dampening I've felt on any lens. There is no play at all, and it's suitably stiff so that you can be sure of accurate focusing. The tripod collar clips off easily, and it's got a soft, rounded finish to the base so holding it in your hand makes for an even more stable platform. You can remove the tripod ring at any point, without any hassle. The focus ring is behind the zoom ring, closer to you. This isn't really an issue, as your fingers will naturally fall on the space between the two rings, so a micro adjustment is required on your part to get to either ring. I can't convey just how well-constructed this lens feels. It's definitely greater than the sum of its parts, when I say plastic you expect cheap, but it really delivers. The lens hood is also very well constructed, and clips into place nicely so you can be sure of a good lock. I would have liked an actual locking clip as seen on some exotic Nikon lenses, but then this is just a personal preference. --Compared to--- The Canon lens is definitely more robust. But don't be too surprised when I say that the Canon lens is ALSO plastic on its exterior. Plastics have come a long way! The Canon lens rings are also well-damped but not quite as stiff as the Sigmas. This is personal preference, but it may matter to you. The Canon is also weather-sealed, whereas no mention of this is on the Sigma. If you're a pro that works outdoors a lot in various elements, it may be worth the jump in cost to be sure that your equipment operates in all conditions. The Canon's build quality is on par with the Sigma, slightly exceeding when it comes to sealing, and 'tank-like build quality' however the lens hood on the canon is nowhere near as well designed as the Sigmas. Again, a little thing, but worth mentioning. The zoom ring is behind the focus ring on the Canon, and both are larger than the Sigmas, but then the Canon is a much larger lens. ::Performance:: I'll save you the marketing babble from Sigma, and just tell you how it performs in actual use: The lens definitely benefits from stopping down. At f/2.8 you have good sharpness in the centre of the image, but stopped down to f/4 it becomes incredibly sharp. You could easily print photos shot at f/2.8 and for web use, it's more than sharp enough, but for those of you demanding peak sharpness. Shoot at f/4 or above. Across the entire zoom range, sharpness is very good, it's sharpest at around the 100mm mark, which is great for portraits, but it holds up very well in the entire range. Vignetting isn't a problem, it's well controlled. Flare can be a problem, if you don't use the hood. I like the flare you get from this lens as it has a very warm tone, and there aren't very many lens flare patterns on the image. Another plus, is that you can SEE this through the viewfinder as its happening so you can correct it on the go. No excuses. The image stabiliser is incredible, it really locks up the image, and makes it feel like you've just set the camera down on a table or solid platform. I don't know if it truly is 4 stops stabilisation, but it's more than enough for me to get decent shots down to around 1/8th of a second. It's really a very good lens, it autofocuses very fast and I haven't had a single miss. It does occasionally focus on something in the foreground (for example, if you are shooting a subject, through a wire fence, it may lock onto the fence) there is no minimum focusing switch, so this is unavoidable, but rarely an issue. The minimum focusing distance is rated at 140cm which isn't great for a lens in this class. Macro isn't especially great, but it's still got a lot of detail in it. The bokeh on the Sigma is amazing, very good indeed. Buttery smooth and really good subject isolation. I don't see any colour fringing at all either! It stands shoulder to shoulder with the big boys here. I like this lens optically, and I would easily recommend it to anyone looking to save some money against the Canon. --Compared to--- The Canon is definitely sharper at f/2.8. This isn't opinion, it's fact. The canon really only benefits in corner sharpness when stopping down, but you could shoot f/2.8 all day long without worrying about minor sharpness. It flares worse than the Sigma, and more lens patterns show in the image, which is really distracting. In other words it has more flare rings, and loses more contrast. The bokeh isn't quite as good as the Sigma's at 200mm, because its a bit sharper. We're really nit picking at this stage, both lenses are EXCELLENT when it comes to bokeh, but the Canon's is just a bit 'busier', Image stabilising is awesome on the Canon, and I would say it's a little better, but when you factor in the weight on the Canon lens you're not really gaining any improvement in this area. Autofocus is superb, spot on every time and very fast, no qualms here. ::Conclusion:: The Sigma is no slouch, it's a very good quality lens, and it works amazingly well in most circumstances. If you need weather sealing and ultimate sharpness at the widest aperture, go for the canon, as it's the hands-down winner in this aspect. If, however, you're looking to get great images at a reasonable budget, the Sigma is the way to go. I can honestly say that the Canon lens does NOT perform a good thousand pounds better than the Sigma, and this money could buy you one, or even two really good lenses, which will give you way more flexibility than one great lens. There are loads of negative reviews on Sigma lenses, saying that they back focus and stuff like that but I happened to order one, and one only, and this lens is perfect, with no issues. Your mileage may vary, but don't be put off. There's a good chance to save a bundle of money, and it shouldn't be passed up. If the lens doesn't perform to your standard, return it. Simple! I hope this helps, if you have any questions, drop me a message!

Appena uscito era l'unica valida alternativa al blasonato canon f2,8 IS L, un'ottima alternativa non molto considerata da molti fotografi che cercano anche in questo mondo la griffe ad ogni costo. Per me rappresenta una valida alternativa a buon prezzo che permette di cimentarsi in molti ambiti, dallo sport indoor al teatro, fino alla ritrattistica. Usato inizialmente su apsc mi ha sempre restituito buoni scatti, anche se la stabilizzazione è inferiore di quella dichiarata di 4 stop, se si vuole essere onesti, questa lente è iun grado di assicurare 2,5, 3 stop di stabilizzazione se avete una mano ferma. Per quanto riguarda il peso si tratta comunque di una lente 2,8 e quindi il peso comincia ad essere importante e se non siete abituati e motivati dopo un pò inizierà a farsi sentire sul vostro collo. Il motore di messa a fuoco è veloce e silenzioso anche se si sente la mancanza del limitatore di focale che lo avrebbe reso più veloce e preciso. Sicuramente in questo il canon è superiore. La resa cromatica è abbastanza fedele, forse i colori sono meno saturi dell'equivalente canon mentre i dettagli a tutta apertura sono un pelo morbidi mentre chiudendo un pò la lente diventa molto nitida. Quando sono passato a FF la lenta si è come rinvigorit, vuoi per i tempi di sicurezza più lenti sia per la resa sul sensore che nen valorizza lo stacco dei piani e la tridimensionalità. IN definitiva molto meglio sul sensore pieno che su quello ridotto e per me rappresenta un'ottima alternativa , a costi decisamente più contenuti, dell'originale Canon. Servizio Amazon ineccepibile e un prezzo che per il tempo era imbattibile sul mercato