From nikon 70-300VR to Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS ?

damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,267
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone made the leap ? I've had my 70-300VR for nearly 2 years and its been great but I really want something which is quicker. But as I watch drag racing, I need something with reasonable reach too.

Will I miss the extra 100mm ? Is it a sensible move ? I have just bought a 1.4 TC as I start collecting..

Help appreciated, thanks.
 
Last edited:
damianmkv said:
Has anyone made the leap ? I've had my 70-300VR for nearly 2 years and its been great but I really want something which is quicker. But as I watch drag racing, I need something with reasonable reach too.

Will I miss the extra 100mm ? Is it a sensible move ? I have just bought a 1.4 TC as I start collecting..

Help appreciated, thanks.
Click to expand...

I moved from the VCR to a sigma non os. Didn't miss it at all on the d90. I didn't however do motor sports! The VCR was a cracking lens, especially in good light.

S
 
So do "people" go for a 70-200 2.8 purely for low light performance or are they much sharper ? ie would I notice a difference in IQ ?
 
I loved my old 70-200 OS, using the vr2 now. Both had outstanding IQ
 
damianmkv said:
So do "people" go for a 70-200 2.8 purely for low light performance or are they much sharper ? ie would I notice a difference in IQ ?
Click to expand...

I thought my 70-300 punched well above what I expected it to. The sigma 70-200 was great (got for a bargain price on here) but I think I missed the VR (especially on the d800). The sigma was plenty sharp. Then there's the daddy - the vr2. Best lens I own (not my favourite, but the best and unfortunately the priciest)

With a decent shutter speed the sigma was great at f2.8 - it's much heavier than the 70-300 VR

S
 
thanks. I think I would be leaving home rather suddenly if I bought the VR2
 
damianmkv said:
thanks. I think I would be leaving home rather suddenly if I bought the VR2
Click to expand...

Indeed.....I had to do quite a few extras and then bought it on 6 months interest free from Jessops.........after asking permission from SWMBO first of course!

I hear the tamron f2.8 is causing a bit of a stir though (I didn't consider it because of what other people have said about autofocus speeds but I didn't check it myself!)

S
 
ah...had discounted the Tamron as the focussing was much slower than the Sigma and the Nikon ( from what I'd read / seen on YouTube )
 
damianmkv said:
So do "people" go for a 70-200 2.8 purely for low light performance or are they much sharper ? ie would I notice a difference in IQ ?
Click to expand...

I own the tamron 70-200mm vc which dxo tested sharper than the VR2.

When used right, I personallly don't think there's a huge difference in sharpness to other good lenses.

Yes, its sharp...but so is the 18-55mm :)

Judging on sharpness alone, I wouldnt notice that much of a difference in real world situations - not if photos are within the lower end of iso, but an image with the 70-200mm at iso400 will look a lot more attractive than an 18-55 at iso1600.

The difference in sharpness comes naturally since you use lower iso's than you would with a slower lens.

Here are the benefits of you upgrading:
-Lower iso.
-Nicer looking images due to shallower dof - this is a really attractive feature on a long lens.
-Probably faster AF.
-Build quality.

Here's the drawbacks;
-Weight / size.
 
My Sigma wasn't the OS one and I really can't remember if it was the HSM or not but when I made the choice, I kept the 70-300 and sold the 70-200 f/2.8. An extra step or 2 up the ISO scale isn't a problem for me since I use a D800 and a D700. The extra weight of the Sigma was an issue for me - the 70-300 is small and light enough to carry as part of the general kit, the faster lens wasn't! Not being a great fan of the shallow DoF look, I don't miss that aspect. Pretty sure the focussing is faster on the 70-300 than it was on the 70-200 but both are PDQ! Although I've never had any problems with any of the several Sigmas I've had, I'm pretty sure the Nikkors are better made.
 
I only have a d3100 which isn't good when the ISO needs to go up :(

Whilst I'd love a new body, there's nothing actually wrong with the one I have so I've been buying better glass. This has turned into a minefield as I'm not clued up enough as to whether I'm making the right choice or not
 
damianmkv said:
I only have a d3100 which isn't good when the ISO needs to go up :(

Whilst I'd love a new body, there's nothing actually wrong with the one I have so I've been buying better glass. This has turned into a minefield as I'm not clued up enough as to whether I'm making the right choice or not
Click to expand...

I know the saying is lens first then body...but in your case, the biggest drawback you would notice would be the uneven weight ratio on such a heavy lens.

The 3100 isn't that bad for higher iso's as much as the front heavy lens that will feel like it will tear your body apart if you don't hold the whole setup by the lens!

I'd personally opt for a gripped body first.
 
Ok, fair point. I did see a d3100 with a 70-200 and it did look out of proportion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top