Nikon 70-200mm or Sigma 70-200mm

[Snapper73]

I have a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5 VR at the moment but was looking at getting a sharper lens like the Nikon 70-200mm or Sigma 70-200mm which are both 2.8f. Can someone please tell me the difference between the different Nikon 70-200mm and then what they compare to the sigma, I also no that the Nikon does not have VR but the 2.8 makes up for this. Also can you put a tel converter on the sigma if i wanted more reach as i know you can with the Nikon.

[Joe T]

Both will take a teleconverter. I suggest you use a Sigma TC on the Sigma lens (Nikon ones do not fit) and a Nikon TC on the Nikon lens.

Apart from VR, the advantages of the Nikon are slightly faster AF, sharper and more contrasty images, and also better build quality.

Whether the Nikon is worth the extra £ is a very personal decision! And not an easy one!

[Snapper73]

Thanks Joe what is the diffrence between the old & new Nikon 70-200 I get a little confused around the AS ED stuff ?

[Joe T]

A useful history of the Nikon 70/80-200 2.8 lenses here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm)

[allanm]

I also no that the Nikon does not have VR but the 2.8 makes up for this.

The Nikon 80-200 does not have VR, the 70-200VR does.
Both are very sharp, the 80-200 is close in price to the Sigma 70-200, which has a good reputation too.
Allan

[Lensflare]

You are probably better if with the 1.7x conv if you go the Nikon route. It is more versatile than the 1.4 and very little difference in light loss.