sigma 70-200 2.8 a good upgrade?

[evilonion]

im looking to extend my focal range.
I was first thinking about the new 28-120 nikon but after a lot of thought i feel i would be better off extending to 200+

I oftern do photos as an assisistant/second photographer at events and the current 18-50 2.8 i have has been great but there have been occasions where i have been borrowing the nikon 70-200.

Unfortunatly the nikon is out of my budget for now so i have considered the sigma as an alternative.
Is it worth getting? is the focus fast and images sharp?
Im guessing the image quality wont be as good as the nikon.

My other option would be to put the sigma money down as a deposit and get the nikon on finance. But as i dont use it daily and im not a pro, is it really worth doing?

:bonk:

 

[grudie]

if vr/os is not on your list take a look at the nikon 80-200 2.8 twin ring it is as sharp as the current crop of glass and it isnt nikons longest produced lens for nothing ...used prices for the same as a siggy and far better optically imo

 

[neil_g]

no complaints regarding our 2 canon mount sigmas over here. use them for sports events and theyre fast and sharp.

 

[evilonion]

is this the one you mean?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-80-20...LEOH/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308046112&sr=8-1

 

[grudie]

yes thats the one .........grays have a cpl as well a bitty cheaper and ebay usually has some ...............ive had mine for a few years now and am still very happy with the results it will beat the siggy hands down on iq i dont think the nikon vr version adds anything optically .......

 

[Keebsuk]

The Sigma regularly gets very good reviews. Beat bet is to take your camera to a shop and give the lens a try.

Andy

 

[evilonion]

does anyone using the sigma find it soft wide open?
i know my sigma 18-50 is quite soft until about f4 ish when it starts to become a nice lens.

 

[neil_g]

does anyone using the sigma find it soft wide open?
i know my sigma 18-50 is quite soft until about f4 ish when it starts to become a nice lens.

nope no softness on either of ours (first of the macro versions). mind you the two 18-50s weve had were also tack sharp..

 

[evilonion]

Is this the one you have?
http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=1769

 

[jj_glos]

I've got the mkII macro in a Canon fit, and find it to be a very decent lens. I'd only change it for the Canon mkII (if I could afford it!).

I find mine sharp enough for my needs.

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr


Gloucester V Leeds AP 10-11 by jj_glos, on Flickr

 

[nano]

Is this the one you have?
http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mainproduct.php?pid=1769

Er, be careful buying from there. Google the company name before handing them money

 

[smudgie49]

The Sigma 70-200 is good but not as good as the Nikon...I went down the Sigma route and ended up changing all of them for Nikon...fortunately didn't lose too much money...