sigma vs nikon

[zamanakhan]

I want to get a 70-210 2.8 lens right now iam looking at the sigma 70-210 2.8 hsm without OS and a used nikon 70-210 2.8 with vr
the used nikon is double the cost of the sigma. Its a bit tough for me to shell out that kind of dough without being sure of how much better the nikon is. So iam wondering if neone knows first hand how much better the nikon is vs sigma, also if there is somesort of review directly comparing both.

 

[ghache]

I want to get a 70-210 2.8 lens right now iam looking at the sigma 70-210 2.8 hsm without OS and a used nikon 70-210 2.8 with vr
the used nikon is double the cost of the sigma. Its a bit tough for me to shell out that kind of dough without being sure of how much better the nikon is. So iam wondering if neone knows first hand how much better the nikon is vs sigma, also if there is somesort of review directly comparing both.

its all over the interwebs.

i am currently shooping for those lens....and the sigma seems like a really good deal for the money. with the cash you save on the nikon you can buy alot of other gear, flashes, primes,

 

[epp_b]

Nikon's is perfect. Sigma's isn't, but it's a heckava lot cheaper.

Check out Nikon's 80-200/2.8. It's only a little bit more expensive than the Sigma. It's basic, with no VR or AF-S, but it's dang good.

 

[orb9220]

Yep the Sigma is good if not needing the build & reliability of constant use in extreme conditions. And won't be banging around daily use.

Also the Nikon 80-200 AF-D can be had used for $650-$850 for the newer two-ring version. At $1200+ for new would just bite the bullet and go 70-200 f2.8VR.


My Gal "Bertha" by orb9220, on Flickr

Got mine for $800 with a tamron 1.4x which gives me a 280mm f4 when the need arises. But it is heavy and no VR so technique is critical and some circumstances require a use of a monopod for consistency getting the shot. Tho my shots with it I have never used one.

But knowing now what I know of all of them. If I could possibly reach the price of the 70-200 f2.8 VR. I would bite the bullet and just get it.
.

 

[ghache]

Nikon's is perfect. Sigma's isn't, but it's a heckava lot cheaper.

Check out Nikon's 80-200/2.8. It's only a little bit more expensive than the Sigma. It's basic, with no VR or AF-S, but it's dang good.

from all the review ive seen, the nikons is tack sharp all over and the sigma is a little bit softer in the corners wide open. F4 and up there is not alot of difference.
if you put the sigma and the 80-200 there is also not alot of difference in all range, focus is faster on the sigma and seems to have similar sharpness.

In my case, i am not shooting big paid assingment so the sigma is probably a better choice for me since its good enough for what i am doing AND ill be able to afford a 85mm 1.8 and filters for pretty much the same price.

if i had the money, then i would probabbly own the nikon's 70-200vrii without even thinking about it

 

[k10387]

I can't speak for the 70-210 but I just made a helluva trade for the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 2-ring version and while I've only taken a few shots with it, i'm extreemly impressed with it's sharpness. I don't think you would be disapointed with one of those at all

 

[Derrel]

Every time you need to shoot in the wind, or from a moving car,aircraft,helicopter,ferry, or pleasure boat, or when out of breath...the Nikon's VR will pay off. When you need to get a shot off hand-held at 1/3 second, and you slide the Nikon's VR switch from NORMAL to ACTIVE, and successfully hand-hold a shot at 1/3 to 1/8 second, you'll understand why the Sigma is worth,literally, significantly less than half as much...

 

[zamanakhan]

thnx for all the advice... i was thinking of going with a used nikon vr 1 but i think the sigma might do what i need. Bieng a student takes its toll on the wallet, and i need a lens with afs not af-d so it seems like iam at the mercy of the sigma.