Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 vrs Nikon's VR verison

[Defy]

Ok I am looking to pick up a fast 70-200 lens and i have narrowed it down to Sigma and the Nikon. The Nikon wins on every level except price! The main draw back on the sigma is no VR =(. So the question is:

Is the Nikon really worth 1000 bucks more?

The reason I want this lens is for low light action shots.

 

[Kegger]

VR is gonna help you exactly none with action shots. It only helps minimize hand shake, you still need a high enough shutter speed, generally 1/250 or faster, to freeze the action.

I use the Sigma, I personally got an excellent copy and have had zero issues with it. Even in low light situations with slower shutter speeds. ISO and lens speed make up for the rest.

So if your looking for a good action lens both will work, but both have the same limitations in low light. And yes, the Nikon wins in sharpness every time but if you don't wanna spend $1700 bucks, get the Sigma, NEW!!! Don't buy one used, cuz if you get a bad used copy you can't send it back to be fixed or replaced.

 

[Txaggie08]

I've put the sigma next to my canon L on a 1ds MKIII for gins, in a controlled lab setting. The image quality with the canon is higher, but not by a whole hell of a lot. To the point that the sigma belonged to a professor who does a considerable bit of professional work, and chose to buy the sigma to free his budget up.

I'm not as familiar with the nikon copies, but I will tell you like I've told a hundred people in the past, if you're not going pro and just needan action lens, get the sigma.

 

[AlexColeman]

NIKON! I love it, and feels so much better then the Sigma. It has way better IQ, feel, and durability. Deffinitely go Nikon, unless you can't afford it.

 

[Defy]

VR is gonna help you exactly none with action shots. It only helps minimize hand shake, you still need a high enough shutter speed, generally 1/250 or faster, to freeze the action.

I use the Sigma, I personally got an excellent copy and have had zero issues with it. Even in low light situations with slower shutter speeds. ISO and lens speed make up for the rest.

So if your looking for a good action lens both will work, but both have the same limitations in low light. And yes, the Nikon wins in sharpness every time but if you don't wanna spend $1700 bucks, get the Sigma, NEW!!! Don't buy one used, cuz if you get a bad used copy you can't send it back to be fixed or replaced.

Which one do you find yourself useing more? Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM or the Nikon 18-200 VR because i was thinking about replacing my 18-55/55-200 lens with that one anyway next.

 

[JerryPH]

Is the Nikon really worth 1000 bucks more?
The reason I want this lens is for low light action shots.

Depends on the person. I would not really call the Sigma 70-200 "pro-level" glass, it is more consumer oriented. It's not terrible, but it is not the best at anything either. Not the sharpest, not the clearest, not the one with the least distortion, not the best built, and not the one with VR... all those characteristics belong to the Nikkor.

My take really is "buy once and buy the BEST when it comes to lenses and lighting equipment and replace the camera body and accessories when needed".

I can always get the lower end glass faster/sooner, but as I've mentioned several times here... I would rather do without than settle for #2. If that means that I have to wait several months to save up more money, thats what I do.

The Nikkor 70-200 VR F/2.8 is the best lens in this range on the market for Nikon cameras... bar none. It is heavy and expensive but to me, worth every gram of weight and every penny that I paid for it. It's fast, clear and crisp and currently sits at the top of the heap. It has no competition... it *is* the competition.

I am not a Nikon leg-humper. When a 3rd party makes glass as good as or better than the OEM, I say it. I own more Sigma lenses than Nikkor (30mm F/1.4, 18-50 DC EX HSM, 105mm F/2.8 Macro, 15mm F/2.8 Fisheye, 10-20mm DC EX Ultra Wide and I may be missing 1 or 2 in that list), but when I want the best quality in the 70-200 range... the Nikkor is the one that is on my camera.

 

[yinwu]

Ok I am looking to pick up a fast 70-200 lens and i have narrowed it down to Sigma and the Nikon. The Nikon wins on every level except price! The main draw back on the sigma is no VR =(. So the question is:

Is the Nikon really worth 1000 bucks more?

The reason I want this lens is for low light action shots.

The Nikon is marginally sharper, focuses better and has better build. You have to decide if though if that is worth 1000 bucks.

Plus if you decide to go full frame in the future the current 70-200 from nikon is known to have very poor corner sharpness and chromatic aberration. I am still awaiting the next full frame iteration from nikon as I need a telezoom

 

[anubis404]

Neither. The Nikon 80-200 AF-D is the same price as the Sigma and is optically as good as the 70-200vr.

 

[Defy]

Neither. The Nikon 80-200 AF-D is the same price as the Sigma and is optically as good as the 70-200vr.

Yeah but I have a D60 so i need the AF-S. I will probably up grade to a d700 when I get enough glass (35mm/50mm primes, 70-200mm 2.8, 12-24mm) I don't think I will ever move into a FX digital camera, at least for 5-10 years so that is not a problem.

Thanks for all the input I have a 1000 put away so far for my lens so I will wait a couple of more months and get the Nikon!

 

[TUX424]

Yeah but I have a D60 so i need the AF-S. I will probably up grade to a d700 when I get enough glass (35mm/50mm primes, 70-200mm 2.8, 12-24mm) I don't think I will ever move into a FX digital camera, at least for 5-10 years so that is not a problem.

Thanks for all the input I have a 1000 put away so far for my lens so I will wait a couple of more months and get the Nikon!

You could always try to find a used AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 there about $700 less the the VR version but are just as sharp as the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 but cost about $150 more than that. But the real problem is trying to find one, since Nikon no longer makes that lens

 

[anubis404]

Yeah but I have a D60 so i need the AF-S. I will probably up grade to a d700 when I get enough glass (35mm/50mm primes, 70-200mm 2.8, 12-24mm) I don't think I will ever move into a FX digital camera, at least for 5-10 years so that is not a problem.

Thanks for all the input I have a 1000 put away so far for my lens so I will wait a couple of more months and get the Nikon!

Bummer. IMO, this lens is worth upgrading to a D70 or 80 for. It would be cheaper than buying the AF-S version.

 

[Kegger]

Which one do you find yourself useing more? Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM or the Nikon 18-200 VR because i was thinking about replacing my 18-55/55-200 lens with that one anyway next.

My 18-200 is my P&S lens, for when I don't want to be switching glass all day. But I use my 70-200 quite a bit more. Portraiture calls for the better overall sharpness in it. Can't afford to have all my shots that are being payed for to come out soft. Even if I got a good copy.

 

[Defy]

well i got the Nikon! I got it used for around 1k. Really haven't had time to play but i will let you know.

I think they should have shipped a beefy neck strap or a mono-pod with this thing! It's heavy! It should make a good wildlife/hunting lens (i could take a picture of the deer then run up and whack it with the lens and have some venison :mrgreen

JerryPH: Thanks for helping me convince the wife that I really needed this one =)

 

[AlexColeman]

Nikkor all the way.

 

[JerryPH]

well i got the Nikon! I got it used for around 1k. Really haven't had time to play but i will let you know.

JerryPH: Thanks for helping me convince the wife that I really needed this one =)

Oh don't give me the *credit* if your wife gives you no noogie for the next 6 months... lol

Congrats on the lens, and let me be the first to menton... if you found one in used and in good condition, man, you were LUCKY!.

... and for the record, I would NEVER do anything harmful to Bambi or any of his relatives.