Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by ph0enix, Jan 27, 2012.
How does this lens compare to the Nikkor 70-200's?
I hear the new OS version is great.. Welcome to Photozone! is a good place to compare.
There's a bunch of videos comparing them on youtube. Jared Polin, that dude with the fro, huge Nikon fanboy loves the non-OS version (he thinks if you're gonna spend 1400 on the OS version, you might as well get the VR I or just shell out for the VR II). He does an extremely detailed comparison video where he shoots a concert in low light and compares the images side by side (against the Nikon 70-200 VR II) and a lot of the shots you can't tell the difference. I also suggest going onto dpreview and looking at the fullres sample shots at 2.8 (which I'm assuming is what you are are worried about, because stopped down they are indistinguishable) and see if you can tell the difference. Some more experienced pros probably can tell the difference, personally I couldn't.
There's a lot of stuff said about how there's a "night and day" difference between the two, I would say it's more of a 5:30pm to 5:55pm difference.
I have the Sigma, non-os version. It's a great lens for the price IMO. The main difference between it and the Nikon (other than the os/vr) is in the focus performance. The sigma hunts from time to time, while the Nikon seems to have less of an issue there. Plus the Sigma is slightly softer wide open. There's also the chance of getting a version of the Sigma with a backfocus issue. Mine has a slight backfocus, but with the d300 I can adjust for that. If I were comparing the OS version, i'd just buy a used Nikon version I personally..
Here's a few shots from mine if you're interested:
Lazy Eyes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Contrails | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Face of a Meerkat | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
works great on film cameras
Growing Down | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Three | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Thanks guys! I looked at some youtube comparisons and the differences in IQ between the Sigma and the Nikkor are pretty significant, IMO. I would love the Nikkor but it costs 3 times as much as the Sigma (without OS) and I'm not a pro so the Sigma quality might be enough for me. What to do? What to do?
The Sigma 70-200 is a very good lens, but the Nikon 70-200 VRII is superb.
But for around the cost of the Sigma, think about the previous version Nikon 70-200 VR used, as these can be bought for about the same as the Sigma and are still optically better, especially when used on DX format.
I almost got the Sigma's 70-200, but ended up getting the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D (2-Ringer) as at the time I wasn't fusted about VR (OS) and haven't regreted it.
They can be bought for well under $1000 used and around or just over that mark new... Just a suggestion...
Thanks for the info but now I'm really confused. Too many choices
You are not alone.
Let me summarize for you based on price from high to low:
1. Nikon 70-200 VR II
2. Nikon 70-200 VR
3. Sigma 70-200 OS
4. Nikon 80-200 (2 ring)
5. Sigma 70-200 non OS
Don't forget there are also Nikon 80-200 afs and 80-200 one ring plus tamaron 70-200. All depending on how much you want to spend.
One thing about the Nikon 80-200 (2 ring version) is the focus speed will depend on your camera since it has no internal motor.
OK, then what you need to do is state what you plan to shoot with it (ie, sports portraits etc) and what your budget is on this purchase, plus are you using DX or FX format.
As all the the ones listed by "xyphoto" are capable of producing excellent IQ but all have there positives and negatives (soft wide open, vignetting etc).
Also the focus speed varies between them greatly and can be of concern if you shoot sports.
So if you can give a little more detail about your intended use of it, a better recommendation can be made to suit your requirements....
I ADORE my 70-200 f/2.8 OS. It's an amazing lens. 95% of my work that you see is done with that lens.
It's soft at f/2.8, but stopped down to even 3.1 it is SUPERB.
The focus is fast and silent on the OS version. The non OS version is macro capable so the focus is slower and if you need fast focus it may hurt a LITTLE. I shoot with a girl who has the non OS version and she's started shooting football with me. She says she's happy overall. There are a few times it fails her because of the slower focus, but overall it's nothing that really hurts her at all in sports.
For the $1000 I saved buying it? It's worth it's weight in gold.
Now I'm sitting here thinking "if the lens is good enough for MLeeK who's a pro, it must be good enough for me". I'm leaning towards the non-OS version though because I would like to use it for macro as well - that's assuming the macro capability is any good.
Separate names with a comma.