70-200 2.8 choices...help!

L

Lukeeee1990

Messages
821
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm currently selling my 70-300 to help put (what is relatively) a very small amount of money towards my next purchase

(FS thread: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=327799)

Question is do I go for the nikkor 70-200 vr2, at around 1700 quid

or the Sigma equiv with OS, at 1000

is the nikkor REALLY 700 quid better? if so why?

I know there's probably alot of people on here who will just say yes because it has the nikon badge on it, etc. but i recently bought an imitation grip (instead of nikon) and it seems great and was a 3rd of the price...ideally thoughts from people who have either lens??

Great, thanks

Luke
 
For the money i'd go for the Sigma, i have the mk1 without OS but they really are sharp lenses, unles you are a pro then opt for the Nikon.
 
I've actually seen that vid Cyprino, quite good...and I have no doubt that the nikon is an excellent, if not superior lens, but this is a case of me being currently taking next to no money from photography...therefore can I REALLY justify 1700 on a lens when I can spend a grand on something almost as good?
 
A used Nikkor 70-200 VR (The 1st version) will be around £1000 and much better value.
 
Martyn... said:
A used Nikkor 70-200 VR (The 1st version) will be around £1000 and much better value.
Click to expand...

I am aware of the 2nd hand prices, but I did hear the sigma was better, hence the vr2 nikon? Not saying it's gospel, just what i read somewhere
 
Lukeeee1990 said:
but I did hear the sigma was better, hence the vr2 nikon? Not saying it's gospel, just what i read somewhere
Click to expand...

Probably from someone who couldn't afford the Nikon :D
Seriously there's nothing wrong with the Sigma but it's not as good as the Nikon
 
SussexBlue said:
Probably from someone who couldn't afford the Nikon :D
Seriously there's nothing wrong with the Sigma but it's not as good as the Nikon
Click to expand...

Haha quite possibly! I can afford both, and have change from my savings, but I want to know if it's really worth the extra monies, you say it's better...can u tell me in what ways?
 
It's an impossible question really. The Nikon is better, but more expensive, so the choice depends entirely on how much you're prepared to spend. Which isn't a question anyone else can answer.

The Sigma has a pretty good rep. Here's one favourable review http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

The clincher for me would be how well it performs with a telecon, which is a severe test of ultimate sharpness. The Canon Mk2 for example works very well as a 400mm f/5.6, and I believe the Nikon is similar. If that's important, you may need to do some side by side tests yourself.
 
had the same dilemma a while back, went with the older Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO DG HSM non macro version...the lens was unreal sharp!!
 
I'm not thinking about getting non OS vectra...400 quid still in my pocket that way...would probably get the macro version though just for the close focusing distance
 
Call me an ignoramus, but I couldn't actually tell much difference between the canon and sigma shots in the dig rev video.
 
My understanding is that the AF speed on Nikons is faster than Tamron & Sigma and people have found the other 2 makes to be a bit slow to focus. I used to have a Tamron 28-75 then got a Nikon 24-70 and there is a difference in IQ and especially AF speed. The VR1 is a very good lens, and can be got for £900-£1000. I would go for that.
 
If you shoot on a crop there is supposed to be no difference between the VR I and II. If you shoot full frame the VR II is better optically. The VR II also breathes and isn't anything like 200 mm at close distances. I have a D7000 so could have got a VR I but went for the VR II as I may go full frame in the future.
 
What about they older 80-200 f2.8 nikon? It is one of the lenses I am looking at as I have no hope of the 70-200vr. The reviews I have read seem to think it is better than the Sigma and not far of the Nikon 70-200 just without the vr :shrug:
 
Tractor Boy said:
What about they older 80-200 f2.8 nikon? It is one of the lenses I am looking at as I have no hope of the 70-200vr. The reviews I have read seem to think it is better than the Sigma and not far of the Nikon 70-200 just without the vr :shrug:
Click to expand...

It would have to be one of the AF-D 80-200s - the 80-200AF-S is expensive enough that you may as well get the 70-200. The AF-Ds are half the price of the 70-200 used so could be a bargain.

I went for a used VR1 over the VR2 because on a DX body there didn't seem to be that much benefit of the VR2 against a VR1. It barely vignettes on DX, and that seemed to be the major bugbear FX people had with it. And there's the whole focus breathing thing on the VR2 if that matters to you (it wouldn't have to me).

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm
Thom Hogan said:
Compared to the Previous 70-200mm
So do you buy version number I or number II?

DX users can pretty much use either. From a true performance standpoint, the gains from the new version are not dramatic when used on DX. I'd say that a DX user is best off with whatever close focus focal length performance they want. If you want to retain focal length up close, stay with the old version, but if you'd like a little loosening of the frame up close, the new version is better (especially considering it really goes to 70mm). Yes, if I'm picking nits, the new version is still sharper than the old version on DX. But frankly, I don't see enough difference to get excited about.
Click to expand...
 
Well interesting comments guys, and if money was no object (i.e. I wasn't such a tight arse) then i think the nikkor vr2 would be the lens to buy.

However I think i'll be purchasing the sigma 70-200 2.8.....whether i'll be going for the OS i'm not sure, see how i'm feeling on the day!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top