Nikon and Sigma? Help!

CaitlinsCreations · Jan 28, 2009

Ok, so I am ready to upgrade my old stuff and plan to buy the Nikon D300 soon. I really want to get a 70-200 lens, but the Nikon brand is pretty $$$
Does anyone know if the Sigma 70-200 is fully compatible with the D300? It's half the price, and I have heard that Sigma works with Nikon, so I want to double check.

I am a great photographer but have not studied a lot of equipment...I hate that stigma (no pun intended) that a professional photographer should know all there is to know about specs on every lens and camera, but it's not like you can take a class on "what to buy" or anything.

Pure · Jan 28, 2009

The Sigma is according to many, is a fantastic lens. There are a few bad copies I believe.[?]
Sigma | 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens | 579-306

Or this
This is the best tele zoom lens for under $1000 for Nikon. The only downside is the older AF-D. Which means the lens uses the motor thats built into the D300 and is louder than the AF-S, which uses a motor built into the lens. You also lose VR with this cheaper lens, but heh, its $700 cheaper.
Nikon | 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod | 1986

CaitlinsCreations · Jan 28, 2009

This is going to sound dumb, but what do you mean by a bad copy? Like a few of them are not made as well as the rest?

What is VR?

NateWagner · Jan 28, 2009

yeah, as with any lens maker there are some copies of a lens that is not quite as good, or sharp as another. Sigma tends to have more complaints about that than the first party makers (I.E. Canon or Nikon)

However, for a third party lens maker Sigma usually seems to be pretty good, and this is especially the case on the 70-200 2.8. Although there are worse copies, most of them are quite good (from what I've read... I only have one copy, and it's for Canon).

tirediron · Jan 28, 2009

CaitlinsCreations said:
...I am a great photographer but have not studied a lot of equipment...I hate that stigma (no pun intended) that a professional photographer should know all there is to know about specs on every lens and camera, but it's not like you can take a class on "what to buy" or anything.

Based on these assertions why would you not spend the extra few dollars? The Nikon 70-200 is an outstanding lens, and one that any great photographer should not be without. I'm by no means a great photographer, but I love mine.

With respect to your question about "knowing all the specs", agreed, no one is going to know everything about every piece of gear, but knowing how to get that information is critical!

How about posting some of your work?

CaitlinsCreations · Jan 28, 2009

tirediron said:
Based on these assertions why would you not spend the extra few dollars? The Nikon 70-200 is an outstanding lens, and one that any great photographer should not be without. I'm by no means a great photographer, but I love mine.

With respect to your question about "knowing all the specs", agreed, no one is going to know everything about every piece of gear, but knowing how to get that information is critical!

How about posting some of your work?

Well, I didn't mean to make it sound like I am full of myself or anything!

Being good at what you do doesn't mean you are also wealthy...I am a full time student as well as in the beginning stages of my business, so I can only afford so much at this point, and a loan is out of the question. I would love to get everything name brand, but wanted some opinions on if I can compromise on the price.

How do you go about "knowing how to get that information" as you said?

I am new to this forum, and will try to post some things when I have more time and am at home.

Ejazzle · Jan 28, 2009

stay away from the Sigma 70-200 macro. Ive heard so many horror stories.

JerryPH · Jan 28, 2009

You get what you pay for... the best Sigma 70-200 will never be as good as a Nikkor 70-200. Now, if you don't have the budget, you have 2 choices:

- Save up a little longer and get the best, your D300 will thank you.
- Settle for pics that are not as good.

dEARlEADER · Jan 28, 2009

Consider (as pure mentioned) the iconic Nikkor 80-200 2.8 instead. No sample variations and tack sharp. Roughly same price as the Sigma.

tirediron · Jan 28, 2009

CaitlinsCreations said:
How do you go about "knowing how to get that information" as you said?

Look into used gear; you can save anywhere from fifteen to fifty percent. I always buy used gear if I can find it... Looking into my bag, there are only four out of ten or eleven lenses that I've bought brand-new.

As far as "knowing" the information, it pays to become familiar with the product line that you use. Spend some time at Nikon's website, pick up a catalogue or two, there are some EXCELLENT 'sites on the web maintained by dedicated Nikon entheusiasts (as there are for Canon, Pentax, et al) which will tell you more than you could ever want to know.

Kegger · Jan 28, 2009

Hey now Jerry, play nice. I use my Sigma 70-200 all the time and it is a great piece of glass. Of course I did get insanely lucky and get a very very good copy.

But just because I buy third party doesn't mean that my photography is automatically inferior to yours.

anubis404 · Jan 28, 2009

Jerry, I don't believe there is going to be many clients that are going to notice the difference between a photo taken by the Sigma rather than the Nikkor.

However, I suggest the OP buys the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 instead of the Sigma. The used on a D300, this lens will give you a FoV of about 120-300. It is also built better and sharper than the Sigma. I am currently saving up for one.

dEARlEADER · Jan 28, 2009

Kegger said:
Hey now Jerry, play nice. I use my Sigma 70-200 all the time and it is a great piece of glass. Of course I did get insanely lucky and get a very very good copy.

But just because I buy third party doesn't mean that my photography is automatically inferior to yours.

I didn't see Jerry say your photography inferior his.

I did see Jerry say you pay for what you get.

There are factual advantages to the Nikkor 70-200 that can't be disputed.

-
-the nikkor is sharper at 2.8
-the nikkor is sharper at 200mm
-the nikkor allows faster autofocus with less hesitation
-the nikkor is subject to far less sample variation
-the nikkor will hold it's residual value better
-the nikkor has a better lens cap
-the nikkor has barrel end focus locks

hence, you pay for what you get..

NateS · Jan 28, 2009

dEARlEADER said:
I didn't see Jerry say your photography inferior his.

I did see Jerry say you pay for what you get.

There are factual advantages to the Nikkor 70-200 that can't be disputed.

-
-the nikkor is sharper at 2.8
-the nikkor is sharper at 200mm
-the nikkor allows faster autofocus with less hesitation
-the nikkor is subject to far less sample variation
-the nikkor will hold it's residual value better
-the nikkor has a better lens cap
-the nikkor has barrel end focus locks

hence, you pay for what you get..

I'll agree with this completely....however....it comes to a matter of are the differences enough to justify the cost. If you can afford the Nikon 70-200 VR then clearly it would make no sense to get the sigma. But....the Sigma (from the samples I've seen) is an excellent lens considering it's price point and is worth the money that the lens costs in my opinion.

The OP has clearly stated (or strongly suggested) that the Nikon is too much money and it's why he's looking at the Sigma. The Sigma is a good lens and at for someone on a budget is one of the best options I think. If somebody asks me what I think about the new Honda Civic, I don't automatically answer with a bunch of reason's why they shouldn't get it because an Acura TL is so much better....obviously they can't afford the Acura TL or they wouldn't be asking me about a new civic.

Pure · Jan 28, 2009

Basically to sum everybody up..........

The SIGMA 70-200mm f/2.8
-Bad copies of this lens do exist, and when a copy is bad, it's unusable [as far as I've heard]. However, if you get a good version of the lens, it gives you fantastic results.
-Loses A LOT more value over time, when you upgrade.
-Not Nikkor glass
-Not as sharp at f/2.8 as both Nikon Lenses, needs to be stopped down for sharpest results.
-Not as sharp at 200mm than both Nikon lenses.

The NIKON 80-200mm f/2.8
-Awesome lens that has almost identical optical quality compared to the 70-200mm version minus a few features
-$700 less than 70-200mm version
-Older screw type AF [AF-D] that uses the cameras AF motor in the camera body, and is therefore louder than built lens motor that all the newer Nikon Nikkor lenses have. [AF-S]
-No VR

The NIKON 70-200mm f/2.8
-Has VR [vibration reduction, reduces camera shake, supposedly allowing 2-4 stops slower, with no visible blur]
-AF lock buttons
-Quiet
-Holds most of it's value over its life until you sell it.
-Nikkor Glass

Personally I'd get the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8.....why?
The lens matches the more expensive 70-200mm version optically, it's $700 cheaper than the 70-200mm version, it isn't sigma, and it's Nikon glass which give you a 5 year warranty. The only major downside is the lack of VR for low light situations, btu maybe VR isn't for you anyway.