Decent glass, Nikon or 3rd party?

[Benco]

I have a question for those in the know; I'm looking at f2.8 zoom lenses and there's the highly regarded Nikon 70-200 (nice, expensive) and third party efforts like Sigma with their 70-200 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM model (same fixed aperture and focal range, half the price of the Nikon), are these 3rd party lenses close in performance to the Nikkor glass? as good as? no comparison?

Cheers.
[h=1][/h]

 

[ratssass]

I bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 over the comparative Nikon on price alone.I hope to someday own the Nikon piece,but this works fine for now.There seems to be a concern regarding quality control regarding Sigma,but I have no issues with mine.I'm also using the 7000....

 

[Benco]

Thanks for that Ratssass, You've done just what I'm thinking of doing there. I've not heard any specific horror stories about Sigma lenses of this calibre but curious about how much better performing the same Spec Nikkor glass is or if it's more in the build quality/reliability rather than the IQ.

PS: I'm really enjoying the D7000. The 18-200...not so much, it's OK and a fine Jack of all trades but I believe now that I could have made a better choice for what I want to photograph. C'est la vie.

 

[TheLost]

Here is my quick review (again ) of all the 70-200 f/2.8's I've owned and used over the past few years...

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro [$750 new]... I've borrowed this lens a few times. It's a great lens killed by its Auto Focus speed. Sharper then the Sigma's at f/2.8 but unusable for anything that moves. I have high hopes for the new one (SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC) however i'm not sure it will be worth the new price of $1.5k

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSMII [~$600 used].. I owned this lens for over a year. IMHO its the best $600 lens you can buy for sports. At f/2.8 you loose sharpness and contrast but it's still usable. Build quality is 'average'. Mine started to show some wear-n-tear after a few months of use. Auto Focus speed is almost as fast as the Nikon's.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS[~$1.3k].. I borrowed and rented this lens quite often. Some people will say it has slightly better image quality, i never saw any difference between it and the older HSMII. What i did see, was a newer lens that had a price tag over double the old model. Since i didn't need OS for what i shoot (sports) i could never justify buying it. Auto Focus speed is the same as the old model... snappy and quick even in low light.

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 [~$900 used].. Its a great sharp lens. Auto focus speed isn't great. I'm not a big fan of this lens but a lot of people are.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI [ ~$1.4k used].. This is what i use now and love it. There is a LARGE difference between the Nikon @f/2.8 and everything else. People who say otherwise are just trying to justify spending the same amount for a 3rd party lens. It's built like a tank, Its weather sealed and Its inexpensive to get repaired (all things being equal). It doesn't suffer from 'focus breathing' as much as the newer VRII. It's softer in the corners then the VRII but on DX its not an issue.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII [ ~$2.4k].. Worth the money. On FX its better then the VRI. On DX there are only very-very-small differences (mostly due to the nano-coating).

I've posted all of these reviews in other threads... I've posted sample pictures from most of them... My opinion is still the same:

If you are spending $500-$700 on a lens... Hunt down a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSMII (make sure its the HSMII!). It is an amazing lens for the price.
If you are spending $700-$900 on a lens... The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a good option if auto focus speed isn't an issue for you. I would save some cash and get the Sigma HSMII.
If you are spending $1.2-1.4k on a lens... GET THE OLDER NIKON! There is a difference. The Nikon is better in every aspect.


Rugby season starts up soon and i hope to get my hands on the new Tamron and Nikon f/4. However, i don't think my opinion will change... the VR1 is the best 70-200 bargain.

 

[JaronRH]

I've tried the Sigma OS, and Nikon VRII. I originally went with the Sigma for the price (not to mention I had good experiences with their 85 and 17-50 OS). The Sigma's HSM motor made it focus very quickly and it was pretty accurate with my D90. It was very sharp wide open and the OS worked very well! However, I found that the bokeh looked nervous in some high-contrast backgrounds and the contrast suffered when shot wide open (which is what I wanted a 2.8 lens for!). Unfortunately, the Sigma I bought from B&H had a horrible back-focusing issue with my camera so I ended up returning it and saving up more towards the Nikon VRII version (BTW, I have to give credit to B&H for their amazing return policy as well as Sigma's tech support. Both surpassed my expectations through the process!).

The Nikon, while expensive, is an outstanding lens. The only shortcoming to this lens - if you were nitpicking - is the focus breathing at short distances (common "complaint" for the lens). Otherwise, the quality, bokeh, sharpness, AF speed & accuracy, contrast, flare resistance... all exceptional! I used this lens both on my D90 and D700 with amazing results.

 

[jake337]

Here is my quick review (again ) of all the 70-200 f/2.8's I've owned and used over the past few years...

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro [$750 new]... I've borrowed this lens a few times. It's a great lens killed by its Auto Focus speed. Sharper then the Sigma's at f/2.8 but unusable for anything that moves. I have high hopes for the new one (SP 70-200MM F/2.8 DI VC) however i'm not sure it will be worth the new price of $1.5k

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSMII [~$600 used].. I owned this lens for over a year. IMHO its the best $600 lens you can buy for sports. At f/2.8 you loose sharpness and contrast but it's still usable. Build quality is 'average'. Mine started to show some wear-n-tear after a few months of use. Auto Focus speed is almost as fast as the Nikon's.

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS[~$1.3k].. I borrowed and rented this lens quite often. Some people will say it has slightly better image quality, i never saw any difference between it and the older HSMII. What i did see, was a newer lens that had a price tag over double the old model. Since i didn't need OS for what i shoot (sports) i could never justify buying it. Auto Focus speed is the same as the old model... snappy and quick even in low light.

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 [~$900 used].. Its a great sharp lens. Auto focus speed isn't great. I'm not a big fan of this lens but a lot of people are.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI [ ~$1.4k used].. This is what i use now and love it. There is a LARGE difference between the Nikon @f/2.8 and everything else. People who say otherwise are just trying to justify spending the same amount for a 3rd party lens. It's built like a tank, Its weather sealed and Its inexpensive to get repaired (all things being equal). It doesn't suffer from 'focus breathing' as much as the newer VRII. It's softer in the corners then the VRII but on DX its not an issue.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII [ ~$2.4k].. Worth the money. On FX its better then the VRI. On DX there are only very-very-small differences (mostly due to the nano-coating).

I've posted all of these reviews in other threads... I've posted sample pictures from most of them... My opinion is still the same:

If you are spending $500-$700 on a lens... Hunt down a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSMII (make sure its the HSMII!). It is an amazing lens for the price.
If you are spending $700-$900 on a lens... The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a good option if auto focus speed isn't an issue for you. I would save some cash and get the Sigma HSMII.
If you are spending $1.2-1.4k on a lens... GET THE OLDER NIKON! There is a difference. The Nikon is better in every aspect.


Rugby season starts up soon and i hope to get my hands on the new Tamron and Nikon f/4. However, i don't think my opinion will change... the VR1 is the best 70-200 bargain.

I've also seen the 80-200 f2.8 push/pull for around $5-600 used in ex condition on KEH.com

 

[Benco]

Thanks for the input everyone, food for thought.

 

[JDFlood]

In my experience, you get what you pay for. When I started to collect my current collection of FX lenses, I did a lot of reading and started thinking maybe some of the secondary glass is as good as Nikon. You can occasionally find comparisons that are carefully constructed or for some parameters secondary is as good or better. But talked to some people that really use the stuff and the the answer was categorically no. The issue is in a way a practical one, do you want to do an inordinate amount of research on each lens. Remember people who have bought 2ndary are going to be inclined to think they made a good decision, you have to make sure each source you use is really unbiased. Also Nikon has a name to keep up, ( and yes they spend a lot on marketing) but overall they make good lenses, much of the time exceeding the competition. See a lot of pros shooting secondary? So if you can afford it Nikon is the best way to go. If your middle name it "best for the money" and love researching the crap out of each purchase, and don't mind a bag of mixed stuff, then secondary may be the best way to go. I am really fortunate, i can afford whatever i want, so it makes the choice a no brainer. JD

 

[daggah]

I'll toss an additional option you may not have considered. Are you looking for the range of the 70-200, or the basic equivalent for your DX D7000 camera? I have the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS and am very satisfied with it. It's sharp, it focuses quickly, and the OS is pretty effective. From reviews I've seen, I think the 50-150 is sharper at 150 than the 70-200 is at 200. Nikon really doesn't have a competitor for this lens, either. Yeah, the 70-200 almost is, but it's much, much more expensive and you don't have some of the headroom on the wide end.

 

[rgregory1965]

I have the Sigma 70-200 OS and the 17-50 OS and both produce very sharp images......very happy with them

 

[Benco]

In my experience, you get what you pay for. When I started to collect my current collection of FX lenses, I did a lot of reading and started thinking maybe some of the secondary glass is as good as Nikon. You can occasionally find comparisons that are carefully constructed or for some parameters secondary is as good or better. But talked to some people that really use the stuff and the the answer was categorically no. The issue is in a way a practical one, do you want to do an inordinate amount of research on each lens. Remember people who have bought 2ndary are going to be inclined to think they made a good decision, you have to make sure each source you use is really unbiased. Also Nikon has a name to keep up, ( and yes they spend a lot on marketing) but overall they make good lenses, much of the time exceeding the competition. See a lot of pros shooting secondary? So if you can afford it Nikon is the best way to go. If your middle name it "best for the money" and love researching the crap out of each purchase, and don't mind a bag of mixed stuff, then secondary may be the best way to go. I am really fortunate, i can afford whatever i want, so it makes the choice a no brainer. JD

I think you just described me. I would love to have just Nikon glass but cannot see myself being able to afford it...OTOH I could just put up with saving for longer for the good stuff, it's a dilemma.

I'll toss an additional option you may not have considered. Are you looking for the range of the 70-200, or the basic equivalent for your DX D7000 camera? I have the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS and am very satisfied with it. It's sharp, it focuses quickly, and the OS is pretty effective. From reviews I've seen, I think the 50-150 is sharper at 150 than the 70-200 is at 200. Nikon really doesn't have a competitor for this lens, either. Yeah, the 70-200 almost is, but it's much, much more expensive and you don't have some of the headroom on the wide end.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'd not heard of that lens. I would like to have the 200mm long end but this does look tempting.

 

[Aloicious]

I could just put up with saving for longer for the good stuff, it's a dilemma.

I think you answered it....think of this too, high end pro lenses aren't as much of a 'cost' as you would think, sure they cost more up front, but they're more like an investment, high end lenses will consistantly hold their value much better (even as newer versions are released), be easier to sell should the need arise, perform better while in use, be more durable, and if needed, they'll have more support should a repair or something need to be made....there are exceptions to the rule, but IME these tend to be the case....besides, lenses pretty much last forever if well taken care of, so save up and buy THE lens you want, rather than spending money on what's cheaper now, and spending more to upgrade later....buying cheaper now and upgrading later will end up costing you more in the long run than just saving up for what you really want, its the same thing with people buying cheap tripods only to spend more and more upgrading time and time again until they figure out that they should have just saved and purchased the better one to begin with.

 

[Snowtographer]

It seems like for most lenses you'll save somewhere around 20% on the initial purchase by going with an off brand lens. For that 20%, you have a lens that depreciates faster, isn't backed by the excellent Nikon customer service, and in the case of Sigma, has 4 year warranty vs a 5. On top of that, you may still be playing the lottery. I have no personal experience with the lottery, but a friend of mine does have a Sigma 70-300 lens that allows for a few degrees of rotation even once it is locked, and the lens has some lateral play. It's only annoying if you're holding just the camera and let go of the lens, like while reviewing playback, and you can feel the lens isn't 100% rigid. There is no apparent effect on image quality, the lens focuses accurately and produces sharp images.

The lens was wobbly in both his FE and D200. We went through 5-6 other lenses, all Nikkors, and the only other lens that had any play was an old longish prime that had damage in the middle of the barrel, as if someone wacked the lens on something while panning.

Just to clarify, when I say play I mean true slop. I think every lens has about a half degree of rotational freedom, but you have to be looking for it to make it happen. The Sigma felt loose. I shoot with a 70-300 Nikon at work, and I'm always slamming the zoom ring back out to 300, and I couldn't imagine how annoying that rotational slop would get, and I'm sure the slop would get worse over time with that happening.

Of course this is only one occurrence, but between seeing it myself and hearing that there is even such a term as the "Sigma Lottery" I have more than enough to dissuade me from buying anything but Nikkor

Yo have an awesome camera, why treat it to anything less than awesome glass?

 

[shefjr]

I only read your original post and nothing further so someone may have already addressed this but, in case no one stated it I figured I would let you know. Matt Granger aka That Nikon Guy on youtube does a really in depth review (4 parts @ 15minutes each) with side by side comparison photos of the Nikon vs. Sigma vs. Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I think this is worth checking out.
Here is part one; part one he touches on which lens has the fastest focus speed(test 1) and then which has the best hand stabilization (test 2)....
So if the above isn't what you are looking for then I would suggest skipping to the second video where he takes an in depth look at quality of photos when shot at f2.8.

 

[Tarazed]

If you don't need VR look for a Nikon 80-200 AF-S 2.8. It's an excellent older pro lens, big and heavy, but excellent. Only to be bettered by the 70-200 VR II and it will hold its value very well. KEH often has them avaliable and higher prices than other sources but KEH sells top quality and in my opinion is worth the extra expense.