Shots from my new 70-200 2.8!!!

[Goontz]

I'm also considering getting one of these over the Nikon version, but wondering how much I'll miss VR. First, though, I'll be getting the Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 because I don't have anything wider than a 50 prime at the moment (sold my 18-55 with my D40 body).

Congrats on the new glass!

 

[TJ K]

At 18-50 with f/2.8 I don't think you will really be needing VR too much. I always think to how not too long ago VR didn't exist and people were still shooting great shots. Even at 70-200 I put it at 2.8 and ISO 800 inside with pretty low light and can get a decent shot.
TJ

 

[Goontz]

Yeah, I'm not concerned with the lack of VR on the 18-50, just on the 70-200. That's true about it not existing before...I guess it's just one of those things that sure is nice to have and we get used to.

 

[TJ K]

Ya definitely something that is nice. But when I was comparing the price difference is just crazy! I think Nikon should be more like canon in that way and make 4 different
70-200mm's so people can afford at least one of em'.
TJ

 

[AtlPikMan]

I'm also considering getting one of these over the Nikon version, but wondering how much I'll miss VR. First, though, I'll be getting the Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 because I don't have anything wider than a 50 prime at the moment (sold my 18-55 with my D40 body).

Congrats on the new glass!

IMO the only reason to get the Sigma over the Nikon is if money is an issue. If comparing the Nikon to the Sigma the Nikon is better.

 

[Goontz]

IMO the only reason to get the Sigma over the Nikon is if money is an issue. If comparing the Nikon to the Sigma the Nikon is better.

I agree and I'd love to have the Nikon, but $2,000 for a lens is a hard pill to swallow, for me, right now. If I were making any significant money from my photography (maybe eventually), I think it would be a different story. I haven't ruled it out, and I'm no where near buying it yet, so who knows.

I would venture to say that that sum of money is an issue for many people when considering a lens, and half the price for what is still very nice glass is hard to overlook.

 

[AtlPikMan]

IMO the only reason to get the Sigma over the Nikon is if money is an issue. If comparing the Nikon to the Sigma the Nikon is better.

I agree and I'd love to have the Nikon, but $2,000 for a lens is a hard pill to swallow, for me, right now. If I were making any significant money from my photography (maybe eventually), I think it would be a different story. I haven't ruled it out, and I'm no where near buying it yet, so who knows.

I would venture to say that that sum of money is an issue for many people when considering a lens, and half the price for what is still very nice glass is hard to overlook.

I totally agree with you. I own a couple third party lenses and if i were to earn cash from this hobby it would be reinvested.

 

[bigtwinky]

Nice shots, congrats on the new glass...

I have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and its my most used lens.

 

[TJ K]

Thanks! I'll have to check out that lens.

 

[TJ K]

Shot for the holidays with the sigma!

 

[Goontz]

Quit convincing me I need to spend that much!

 

[TJ K]

Hehe :lmao:

 

[zeto88]

It's a shame the bigger dog got cropped in the first picture.

 

[Canosonic]

So if I have a 18-55 3.5-5.6 lens and a sigma 70-300 4-5.6 non-APO i should better get a 2.8 version for the former lens then for the latter? 17-50 2.8 than 70-200 2.8?

 

[Vicelord John]

I hate you.

Actually I'm just very jealous. I saw one at the local camera shop on consignment for $600 and was going to buy it on the spot. I picked it up though and it looked like someone rolled it down a mountain, which would explain the price.

Someday.... but for now, congrats!