Thinking about 70-200... Sigma OS or non OS


No longer a newbie, moving up!
May 27, 2010
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit

Finally I am at that place, when I am considering a 70-200 2.8 lens to extend the focal length of my Sigma 17-50 2.8.

I am an advanced amateur photographer, and I am only satisfied with professional looking - sharp images.
Now there's no way I could afford a nice Nikkor 70-200 VR (I am a student), so I am considering Sigma again.

What is your opinion?
-> OS version or
-> Macro II version for half the price?

How much better is OS version? Is it also sharper? Worth double the money? (I could get the non OS version right now, for the OS I'd probably have to wait a bit more...)
I'll be using the lens on a Nikon D90 (and I doubt I will be able to get an FX body sooner than in 5-7 years... - so it's for DX purposes)

Thanks for advice
A sports shooter on here, MLeek swears by the Sigma 70-200 OS. So without using that particular lens, I'd suggest that over the Non-OS "Macro" lens if price is an issue and you can't save up for the Nikon 70-200.

You could also benefit from the OS more since you're using a DX body.
You do realize that the price of sigma OS version is just a little less than Nikon vr1, right? If you have a tight budget, try Nikon 80-200mm.
You do realize that the price of sigma OS version is just a little less than Nikon vr1, right? If you have a tight budget, try Nikon 80-200mm.

Depending on if you trust internet opinions (lol and in this case I think OP does since this question is posted on a forum) Jared Polin, that Froknowsphoto guy likes the Sigma (non-OS) version better than the old Nikon 80-200mm. And this guy is like the biggest Nikon fanboy out there.
If I had to choose between the four options (80-200/2.8D, 70-200/2.8OS, 70-200/2.8non-OS, and 70-200/2.8VRI), I would definitely save for a few more weeks/months and pick up the VRI Nikkor. I've used the Sigmas, and I own the 80-200. The Sigma's definitely hold their own as far as image quality is concerned. But, they do have some serious falloff in the corners, slight CA problems, and perform worse than the Nikkor wide open. If you must go for the sigma, I'd definitely go with the OS. It's far more useful, and you will appreciate the OS when you need it. But, like someone else said, the VRI isn't too much more money. That also being said, the NIkkors will all hold their resale value much better than the Sigmas will. I never used to care about this, but I can see now, when moving to full frame, and rearranging my lens lineup, that it would have been quite a bit easier to do the transition if I would have gotten mostly Nikon lenses in the beginning (would have had more resale value).

So, basically, if you're going for the Sigmas, go with the OS. You won't regret it. If you feel up to it, go with the Nikkor VRI. It's definitely worth the investment. :thumbsup:

My $.02
If you can get the Nikon VR1 version-go for that first.
I do love my OS version. It's my primary lens. It is not at it's sharpest wide open-any lens isn't. I generally shoot at f/4 with an f/2.8 lens. This one shows marked improvement even stepping up to f/3.2.
The biggest reason I went with the OS version is the speed of focus. Macro lenses are slower to focus and for sports that matters. I also have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 macro and it was my primary lens, however I did feel the pinch of the focus on it-but I shoot a LOT of sports. For portrait work and anything that doesn't require uber fast focus the non OS version is awesome. I shoot with a girl who has the non OS version and loves it. She does feel the focus occasionally when shooting sports, but it serves her well even then.

OS is handy if you are shooting weddings, etc where you may be at a slower shutter speed than you SHOULD, but IMO it's over rated. At a certain point in shutter speed you have to shut it off because it causes it's own vibrations-and will drain your battery ASAP. So, it's really only useful when you are shooting at slow shutter speeds. I am always above 1/250 so I am above the camera shake already. There was great, sharp photography before there was OS/IS/VR. You simply follow the rules for shutter speed.

These are shot with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS The first 3 are at ISO 12800 so there has been noise removal done here.






THese are shot with the Tamron



What's the major improvement between the VR1 and the VR2?
I believe the VR was from 2-4 stops, and the focus breathing was vastly improved.

I have the non-os version. If I were buying today, from what I know from using this one, I would get a used Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I. Or the Sigma OS if you must buy new.
Thank you for your opinions:

I checked the prices of new lenses, where I live:

Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro II - 538€ = 707$
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS - 999€ = 1313$
Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRI - 1599€ = 2101$ (I found one used for 1500€, I'll see if I can knock it down to 1200€ =P)

I just hate myself... =D It's always like this, when I'm buying something... I start with a lens for 700$ and then without even knowing I am considering a 2000$ lens... =D
I don't know what I'm going to do yet... Nikkor is a better investment, but I will be using it on a crop body (and using the sweet spot of the lens), so I guess I should be fine with the softness in corners of the Sigma...
I'll do some more research on the used Nikkors VRI =)
That's far too much money for the VRI. In the US, they sell for around $1100 (if you're lucky) to $1500. One of them is only $2300 new I believe!

EDIT: Oh, haha. I didn't notice you said new lenses. :blushing:

Hi, I am new to this forum and i am here for a help. Can anyone let me know where can i get Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital DSLR Camera with non os? and my budget is very less so iam ok with a used lens as well. Can anyone help me buy one?
You need to make your own post instead of dredging up an old one. MUCH better chances of getting help that way.
You also need to give a budget amount so we can work within it.

Most reactions