Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 Vs Sigma 70-200mm 2.8!

Flash In The Pan said:
You're just looking for a fight, aren't you? :naughty: :LOL:
Click to expand...

lol im honestly not, i wasnt even going to post in this one, i just want to see them compared and see if the price difference is worth it. Not that id pay for the Nikon at this stage but if the Sigma is as good its quite tempting:)
 
Well, for the same sort of money as the Sigma you could get a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 which is a cracking lens and imho a total bargain compared to the likes of the Sigma or even the 70-300 VR (itself a decent lens) which is "only" £2-300 less....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Well, for the same sort of money as the Sigma you could get a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 which is a cracking lens and imho a total bargain compared to the likes of the Sigma or even the 70-300 VR (itself a decent lens) which is "only" £2-300 less....
Click to expand...

The 80-200 looks good but why is it £500 cheaper than the 70-200? for 10mm?
 
I had the Sigma, found it very soft at 200mm, not as sharp as my 18-200VR. I`m afraid that put me off keeping it.
I just bought a Nikon 80-200 afs, looking forward to seeing how that one performs, the Nikon 70-200 is just a bit too expensive for me at the moment.
Allan
 
lukewoodford said:
ok cool, i can understand where the price difference comes from then.
Click to expand...


There might be a price difference now, but it's entirely due to fashion. The 80-200 f2.8 AF-D when it was bought out, was THE lens to have, and it was the PJ's favourite. It was then horrendously expensive and was reckoned to be the sharpest zoom lens there was. There is no reason to suspect that it is any less good now, than it was then.

OK, so it doesn't have VR, or a USM lens motor, but that will just serve to make it more reliable. These AF-D lenses represent the best that Nikon have ever made, and I doubt that viewed objectively, you would be able to see any difference in pictures taken with the AF-d or AF-S.

They are damned good looking lenses too.
 
I've had both .. the Sigma was great for the price paid for it .. but lack of VR and a bit soft over 180 made me really happy to get the Nikon.

Nikon's 70-200 is unbelievably sharp, fast, and versatile. It is built like a tank, fits your hands really well .. and is one hell of an ego booster. I've used it with the Nikon 1.7 TC, and the images were a bit soft, but still very acceptable .. and very fast to acquire focus.

Sadly, for me, I wasn't able to get to shoot hand-held with the Nikon, even though it is a lot better than the Sigma, and I ended up selling mine .. and ever since then I have been depressed at the thought of parting with it.

I am going to wait until after Photokina is over to see what new lenses may be released .. if there is a new 70-200 coming then I will order that, otherwise I will be buy another copy of this lens. As for my hand, I will pickup weightlifting to built some badly needed muscles :p

So, to answer the question .. is the Nikon's price premium worth it? Yes, yes, yes.
 
dougdarter said:
There might be a price difference now, but it's entirely due to fashion. The 80-200 f2.8 AF-D when it was bought out, was THE lens to have, and it was the PJ's favourite. It was then horrendously expensive and was reckoned to be the sharpest zoom lens there was. There is no reason to suspect that it is any less good now, than it was then.

OK, so it doesn't have VR, or a USM lens motor, but that will just serve to make it more reliable. These AF-D lenses represent the best that Nikon have ever made, and I doubt that viewed objectively, you would be able to see any difference in pictures taken with the AF-d or AF-S.

They are damned good looking lenses too.
Click to expand...

Ill definatlely bare that in mind, come to think of it i think im going to rule these two lenses out as i doubt ill ever go past 150mm doing portraits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top