[scollins]

Today I bought a gently used Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II (Nikon mount) off of Craigslist for $575. Seemed like a great deal, so I decided "what the heck?" and went 3rd party. I'd really rather have the Nikkor 70-200 VR II, but it costs more than the GDP of some small countries......

Anyway, by the time I got it home, it was dark outside. So I was messing around with it in the house, not really thinking anything of interest would present itself to photograph. But then I noticed my daughter was coloring with her pencils, and I thought they'd make a great subject!

So I arranged the pencils, and sharpened them up a bit. Can't have sharp pictures of dull pencils! Or is it dull pictures of sharp pencils? Hmmmm....

Anyway, here are the shots I took. All are at f2.8, with most at the maximum 200mm. I used my SB-600 off-camera to provide some light, firing it remotely with my D300's built-in flash as the commander.

I just took the RAW images, opened them in PS4 Extended and saved them as maximum quality JPEGs to upload to Flickr. I didn't touch up the images at all in PS. These are just the medium sized images from Flickr, not the originals that I uploaded....

So, what do you guys think? Did I get a good deal on a good lens?

I was thinking I should call these "Sharp Colors".

[vachss]

Originally Posted by scollins

So, what do you guys think? Did I get a good deal on a good lens?

If it provides a range you need and you like the results then you got a good deal. What you pay for with a 70-200/2.8 is sharpness wide open and it's hard to judge this from web-sized shots.

Anyway, not trying to rain on your parade. The Sigma 70-200 is generally regarded as a high quality lens and a good bargain compared to the Nikon and Canon alternatives. Looking at recently completed sales on Ebay it appears that $500-$600 is the going rate for one of these in a Nikon mount, and you're right in that range.

Enjoy it.