Worth it to pick up a Sigma 70-200?

Live_free · Mar 9, 2011

Hey guys, long time so see. Anyway I was wondering if I should pick up a sigma 70-200 2.8 before it becomes 150 dollars more.

What I have now.

-D90
-18-105 "kit"
-SB-600
-35 and 50 1.8

Thanks. :3

EDIT: If anyone could chime in on the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR vs Sigma 70-200 HSM II (Non OS version) that would be great. Or should I just save up and get an awesome lens?

tirediron · Mar 9, 2011

Considering you can buy a used Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRI for less, I would have to say no; not to me at least.

Live_free · Mar 9, 2011

Aren't those not as quick to focus though? I'd like to use it for sports. But thanks for the input, will look into it.

pdq5oh · Mar 9, 2011

I don't think you'll find the Sigma will focus any faster. The IQ of the Nikon is much better. As is the build quality.

tirediron · Mar 9, 2011

The used Nikon will beat the Sigma hands down in build-quality, image-quality and focusing speed.

Live_free · Mar 9, 2011

Any good place to pick up a used VR1?

tirediron · Mar 9, 2011

Found mine on Craig's List.

Live_free · Mar 10, 2011

Yeah I checked there, no dice. I will look around for a bit but soon this sigma will be 950 bucks so I will have to buy if I cannot find a VR1.

photogir2002 · Mar 10, 2011

I have a 70-200 but it is a 4 to 5.6 (was cheap and just wanted to get an idea if I needed a zoom like that). Anyhow, I really love it and it was great for sports. Image stabilizer, etc. I have to say the 2.8 would be even better? but with the price, yeah, maybe you should keep looking.

tirediron · Mar 10, 2011

Live_free said:
Yeah I checked there, no dice. I will look around for a bit but soon this sigma will be 950 bucks so I will have to buy if I cannot find a VR1.

Sigma's website lists it at $2400; is there that much of a difference between their MSRP and actual over the counter prices? If so, disregard my previous recommendation. You won't touch a Nikkor model for under $1000; probably more more like $1200 - 1400.

Live_free · Mar 10, 2011

The sigma is only 800 now and will be around 950 in a few weeks. Sharpness worth the extra money?

ghache · Mar 10, 2011

they say the vrII is about 20% sharper. but 120% more expensive. make your choice.

kylehess10 · Mar 10, 2011

The 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma lens is an AMAZING LENS!!!!

I paid $450 for mine off eBay and I never regret that purchase. I used it at Turner Field in 2010. The quality was so great, that I actually received numerous request for prints from the players themselves. They loved the quality too apparently

Here's some examples of my pics taken with the 70-200:

The only thing I don't suggest is getting a teleconverter with it. I bought the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter when I had this lens and it downgrades the sharpness severely.

ghache · Mar 10, 2011

kylehess10 said:
The 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma lens is an AMAZING LENS!!!!

I paid $450 for mine off eBay and I never regret that purchase. I used it at Turner Field in 2010. The quality was so great, that I actually received numerous request for prints from the players themselves. They loved the quality too apparently

Here's some examples of my pics taken with the 70-200:

The only thing I don't suggest is getting a teleconverter with it. I bought the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter when I had this lens and it downgrades the sharpness severely.

love the shots,

i am actually putting my hands on a used one this weekend. seller is letting me use it for the weekend. if its a sharp copy i might buy it.

edwardmendes · Mar 10, 2011

I'm pretty iffy with Sigma lens. While I haven't used the 70-200mm I have owned two other sigma lens and I've given them both away, they just weren't sharp. Based on my experience with both Sigma and Nikon I'd favor the Nikon every time.