Sigma vs Nikon 70-200/2.8?

Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by farski, Jan 6, 2008.

  1. farski

    farski TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I've been wanting a fast telephoto zoom for a while, and Nikon's has been out of my price range. Sigma has a new(ish) 70-200 that's significantly cheaper, but seems to include mostly the same features — optical, zoom, etc. The Sigma is missing the vibration reduction, which probably accounts for most of the price difference. Does anyone have any experience that would allow them to compare the two? I don't buy new lenses often, so if there is a sizable difference in quality or longevity in the Nikon, I would rather wait and get that. If I were to go with the Sigma how much would I miss VR? I've never owned any non-Nikon glass for my D70s.

    Thanks.
     
  2. Sideburns

    Sideburns TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Sigma makes awesome lenses. No doubt about it. If they were the same, I'd say go for the Sigma if you couldn't afford the Nikon. But in this case, you have to weight whether you need the VR. I would personally get it if it was feasible...but that's me.

    Also, for longevity, they'll both last a while...though I'm sure the Nikon is a bit more heavy duty. One thing to remember, though...is that if you were to sell the lens...the Nikon will fetch close to the original cost, or more in some cases...the Sigma, not so much...
     
  3. Fate

    Fate TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,685
    Likes Received:
    67
    Location:
    England - Worcestershire
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Nikon will have advantages of build quality, VR and good resale price... and probs a bit of extra sharpness... but it all comes at a cost.

    if you have the money.. go nikon.
     
  4. Offbeat

    Offbeat TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bolton, UK
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I need to know exactly the same thing. I think im gunna save for the Nikon.
     
  5. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If the Sigma outperforms the Nikkor, I have no problem getting the Sigma, matter of fact the majority of my lenses are Sigma... however the performance of the 70-200 is unsurpassed. I made the decision to save up and get the 70-200 Nikkor and it came just in time for Christmas. I love it.

    Be warned, though... its big and heavy... NOT an easy to use as a walk-around or daily lens by any means!
     
  6. farski

    farski TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'd really been hoping for another outcome, just so I'd end up with a nice zoom sometime soon, but I think the benefits of the Nikon are just too appealing. oh well.
     
  7. JIP

    JIP No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Pittsburgh PA
    You get what you pay for. if you can't afford the Nikon a Sigma is a reasonable alternative but of course the Nikon is a better lens.
     
  8. dpolston

    dpolston TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA.
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I chose the Nikon over the Sigma (I played with them both in B&H on my last trip). The Nikon I saw (and bought) had features I wanted and franlky, I took the salesperson's recommendation. He said that he'd stick to the name brand to the camera if cost weren't a major factor.

    My only regret was I didn't go for the VR, but this WAS a cost factor for me.
     
  9. keith204

    keith204 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Bolivar, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    from a canon user here...

    I went the Sigma route. At the time I wasn't making money with my gear, and I couldn't "save up" for a Canon. At the time, it was a good decision. Even now that I covet the white 70-200 2.8 IS, saving $800 is great. I can almost buy another coveted lens with that money :).
     
  10. Garbz

    Garbz No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
  11. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    When I die, I do not want the hands across the chest thing, I want to go holding on to my D200 and 70-200 VR. You never know, I may find something interesting to take a picture of along the way... lol
     
  12. D40

    D40 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    475
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have the Sigma because I am not makeing money on my photography at this point but still wanted a fast 70-200mm lens. It boils down to: if you can afford the Nikon then get it, if not the Sigma is just fine:)
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
70-200 f2.8 nikon vs sigma
,
70-200 sigma vs nikon
,
nikon 70-200 vs sigma
,

nikon 70-200 vs sigma 70-200

,
nikon vs sigma 70-200
,
sigma 70 200 vs nikon 70 200
,
sigma 70-200 vs nikon
,

sigma 70-200 vs nikon 70-200

,

sigma vs nikon

,
sigma vs nikon 70-200 2.8