Why you alway have to choose-? Sigma or nikkor

[dak1b]

i personally stay with the consumer's name. thats just the way i shot. shot canon! :thumbup:

 

[NateS]

I've used both. I sold the Sigma a few days after I got it. At 200mm+, you NEED some kind of image stabilization because as your focal length increases, so does camera shake. With the Nikkor, the VR really helps. Of course, non of this really matter if you plan to use the tripod a lot because that can compensate for the non-VR lenses. Personally, I prefer to not carry around a tripod, so I stuck with the 50-200 nikkor and I love it.

I largely disagree....maybe you just needed to work on your technique at 300mm. All of the images below were done with the Sigma at 300mm and f/8 handheld.

Yes, in bright daylight, you can afford to step up the shutter speed to compensate for camera shake, but it's not that simple in lower light photography.

1. This was an overcast day..not all that bright out and it still did the job.

2. I missed the part where the OP said they were concerned with shooting in low light (because it's not there). Sure, shooting in the evening or morning light and VR is better but any other time of day the Sigma 70-300 has no problem keeping up....even with a heavy overcast.


I've never understood why people have such a hard time admitting that the Sigma 70-300 APO is an exceptional lens for it's price. Even when results can show how great of images can be gotten with it people still can't give it due credit.

 

[Kofman13]

So, OP, which one did you get?

 

[minister]

I went for nikon 55-200 and I am happy

 

[Idahophoto]

Both are fantastic lenses and would be a very tough call, but I would probably lean towards the Sigma for myself. Then again that VR is very nice to have and makes a hufe difference.

 

[shaunly]

Should of went with the nikon 70-300mm VR. that lens is very underrated. Very sharp zoom at a great price. I would say it's just as sharp as a 80-200 but without the f2.8