Sigma 70-200mm sports vs EF version 3 and RF 70-200mm 2.8 feedback?

Hi!

I am considering the Sigma sports version vs the RF 70-200mm or even the EF version 3.
My concern with the RF version aside from the much higher price is the heavy focus breathing where 200mm is much shorter than the old EF but of course it does focus closer.

I would like great Eye AF accuracy and overall fast AF so perhaps that means the RF but maybe the Sigma is not far behind? I love my other Sigma glass adapted so far.
This will be on the R5 and R6
Thanks

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Hi!

I am considering the Sigma sports version vs the RF 70-200mm or even the EF version 3.
My concern with the RF version aside from the much higher price is the heavy focus breathing where 200mm is much shorter than the old EF but of course it does focus closer.

I would like great Eye AF accuracy and overall fast AF so perhaps that means the RF but maybe the Sigma is not far behind? I love my other Sigma glass adapted so far.
This will be on the R5 and R6
Thanks

I ordered the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sports. I will receive it monday, or, if I'm lucky, this weekend.

If it's here Saturday I might find some time to test. What do you need to know? Walking speeds, running speeds, biking speeds? Environmental body, body filling the frame, from the waist filling the frame up or head and shoulders filling the frame? @200mm or other focal lengths?

I had compared the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and ended up buying the Tamron as I felt like the AF was a bit faster and more accurate.

thunder storm wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Hi!

I am considering the Sigma sports version vs the RF 70-200mm or even the EF version 3.
My concern with the RF version aside from the much higher price is the heavy focus breathing where 200mm is much shorter than the old EF but of course it does focus closer.

I would like great Eye AF accuracy and overall fast AF so perhaps that means the RF but maybe the Sigma is not far behind? I love my other Sigma glass adapted so far.
This will be on the R5 and R6
Thanks

I ordered the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sports. I will receive it monday, or, if I'm lucky, this weekend.

If it's here Saturday I might find some time to test. What do you need to know? Walking speeds, running speeds, biking speeds? Environmental body, body filling the frame, from the waist filling the frame up or head and shoulders filling the frame? @200mm or other focal lengths?

That is awesome. Walking speed will be good just for runway stuff. 
Most of the time I will use it in the studio and I like 2.8 many times for some blur of textured backdrops so 70mm 135mm and 200mm tests of Eye AF will be awesome.
If it's like my 105mm 1.4, it never misses even at 1.4 and up close although most of the time I am shooting mid to full body.
Thanks!!!

tdbmd wrote:

I had compared the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and ended up buying the Tamron as I felt like the AF was a bit faster and more accurate.

That is interesting, intriguing, and concerning...although I ruled out the Tamron as I cannot stand focus breathing, unfortunately.

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

I had compared the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and ended up buying the Tamron as I felt like the AF was a bit faster and more accurate.

That is interesting, intriguing, and concerning...although I ruled out the Tamron as I cannot stand focus breathing, unfortunately.

I consider the focus breathing of the Tamron as a plus actually.

higheronymous wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Hi!

I am considering the Sigma sports version vs the RF 70-200mm or even the EF version 3.
My concern with the RF version aside from the much higher price is the heavy focus breathing where 200mm is much shorter than the old EF but of course it does focus closer.

I would like great Eye AF accuracy and overall fast AF so perhaps that means the RF but maybe the Sigma is not far behind? I love my other Sigma glass adapted so far.
This will be on the R5 and R6
Thanks

Another rumor being blown out of proportion by the jealous proponents of other brands. Hate to sound so negative but it's true. The lens is very, very good.

Is not a rumor, is a fact.

"Out of proportion" is a matter of opinion as it depends on individual needs. I don't buy a zoom lens that is supposed to be 200mm to end up with a real world 170mm or so.

I have seen the results side by side, as I had tamron before and saw it barely matching 167mm.

Of course at longer distances is not an issue and for some it will be fine but it is a real thing and it simply does not work for my needs.

thunder storm wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

I had compared the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and ended up buying the Tamron as I felt like the AF was a bit faster and more accurate.

That is interesting, intriguing, and concerning...although I ruled out the Tamron as I cannot stand focus breathing, unfortunately.

I consider the focus breathing of the Tamron as a plus actually.

I dont, at all. I bought a 200mm on the long end..I need it to be 200mm. To each its own.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

tdbmd wrote:

I had compared the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 vs the Tamron G2 70-200 f2.8 and ended up buying the Tamron as I felt like the AF was a bit faster and more accurate.

That is interesting, intriguing, and concerning...although I ruled out the Tamron as I cannot stand focus breathing, unfortunately.

Focus breathing can be a nightmare for video obviously, but when is it an issue for stills? I used an EF 100-400L II for years, now replaced with an RF 100-500, both of which exhibit major focus breathing, but in practical use I literally never notice it. I know it's there mainly from calculations of the focal length at close focusing distance, not by seeing it in the viewfinder.

Of course, it can be an issue for stills as well. If I buy a 200mm is because I want that "compression" and what it does to facial features on a headshot for example. If I were doing landscape, then that is not an issue but at a close distance when it happens as bad as it was with a previous Tamron I had (around 167mm in real life) then is like I am been cheated of what I paid for. On an event that means moving closer to a subject when I may not be label to do so, cropping, at what not. Again, I bought a 200mm not a 70-167mm. 
In the end, for some this may not be an issue, for others, like me, it is. We all have different needs so just because something does not affect me, I am going to assume the rest of the world feels the same.

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

To each its own.

True.

thunder storm wrote:

Luis Gabriel Photography wrote:

Hi!

I am considering the Sigma sports version vs the RF 70-200mm or even the EF version 3.
My concern with the RF version aside from the much higher price is the heavy focus breathing where 200mm is much shorter than the old EF but of course it does focus closer.

I would like great Eye AF accuracy and overall fast AF so perhaps that means the RF but maybe the Sigma is not far behind? I love my other Sigma glass adapted so far.
This will be on the R5 and R6
Thanks

I ordered the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Sports. I will receive it monday, or, if I'm lucky, this weekend.

If it's here Saturday I might find some time to test. What do you need to know? Walking speeds, running speeds, biking speeds? Environmental body, body filling the frame, from the waist filling the frame up or head and shoulders filling the frame? @200mm or other focal lengths?

Sorry, this deal turned out to be "to good to be true."  Fortunately I got my money back from Amazon. The seller is trying to redo the deal surpassing Amazon, but that's not going to happen.