Sigma and Nikon 70-200

Aaron

Aaron

Messages
222
Name
Aaron
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to get a 70-200 but am wondering if I'll notice a massive difference between the sigma at £1000 and the Nikon at £1600.

It will be used mainly for motocross and other sporting events.

Basically will it just me spending £600 more?

Opinions please
 
The sigma doesn't focus nearly as fast as the Nikon.

If you want it for motorsport then get the Nikon.
 
I think you looking at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM OS. That one to me is not really worthy buying, might as well buy the Nikon 70-200 f2.8.

If is the non OS mkII version then it may worth a shot since the price is damn cheap. Even cheaper used.

I got to disagree about the Nikon focus faster. The Sigma HSM what i got focus just as fast as any of my AF-S lens.
 
i was faced with a similar quandary this week as i realised i wanted/needed a 70-200. I dismissed the cheaper sigmas instantly, due in part to the lack of VR / OS. I briefly considered the OS sigma but reviews still seem to indicate that whilst it's a very good lens, it's just not quite up there with the nikon vr II for sheer build and optical quality.

So after a bit of justification to myself, along the lines of 'well, this lens is hopefully going to last me a long long time, so i may as well spend more to get the best', I bought the nikon vr II from jessops with 10 months interest free credit. Put a £400 initial payment down so only paying back a little over £100 a month until novemeber.

Interest free might be enough to help push you over the edge and get the nikon perhaps? ;) Any way, whilst i haven't had a chance to take it out and about yet, it really does ooze quality...
 
VR for motorsport is a waste of time.

If thats what you want it for, don't worry about the VR thing.

Of course, Nikon don't give you a choice though.

Best suggestion - buy a secondhand VR 1, sub a thousand quid.
 
desantnik said:
VR for motorsport is a waste of time.

If thats what you want it for, don't worry about the VR thing.

Of course, Nikon don't give you a choice though.

Best suggestion - buy a secondhand VR 1, sub a thousand quid.
Click to expand...

....or an 80-200 AF-D if the budget is a bit tighter (£500-600). There is also the 80-200 AF-S but pricewise it's probably so close to the 70-200 VR (and a lot scarcer) that it's not worth considering.
 
I'd not drop to the AF-D to be honest, not for motorsport, particularly not MX and as you say the 80-200 AFS is a rare beastie.

Not that you can't get a shot with any of the glass talked about here, its just that you reduce the chances of getting the shot with lesser performing gear - believe me, I've worked from the bottom up with my kit over the years.
 
desantnik said:
I'd not drop to the AF-D to be honest, not for motorsport, particularly not MX and as you say the 80-200 AFS is a rare beastie.

Not that you can't get a shot with any of the glass talked about here, its just that you reduce the chances of getting the shot with lesser performing gear - believe me, I've worked from the bottom up with my kit over the years.
Click to expand...

I found the AF-D "okay" for motorsports, it was really just the superbikes and the really fast stuff like that it had a problem with, I'd imagine it would handle motocross well enough. I'd certainly rather have that than a Sigma, any Sigma....
 
Owned and lived with the Sigma 70-200 HSM MKII for two years, good lens solid optics. However, I've recently sold it to get the Nikon 70-200 as the IQ is better wide open at the longer end and after trialling the Nikon version I just knew I needed to change.

The Siggy is a great lens but the Nikon is that little bit better IMHO.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I found the AF-D "okay" for motorsports, it was really just the superbikes and the really fast stuff like that it had a problem with, I'd imagine it would handle motocross well enough.
Click to expand...

MX can be a funny thing though - blind approaches and bikes doing stuff right on you.

As you no doubt know, close up distance changes are what tax the AF systems the most and MX really is close up, in your face - for everyone, not just media togs... which is why its so much photographic fun :cool:
 
kalibre said:
Owned and lived with the Sigma 70-200 HSM MKII for two years, good lens solid optics. However, I've recently sold it to get the Nikon 70-200 as the IQ is better wide open at the longer end and after trialling the Nikon version I just knew I needed to change.

The Siggy is a great lens but the Nikon is that little bit better IMHO.
Click to expand...

From what I read about sigma before buying one the main issue is quality control, I bought mine off kalibre as I just could not justify the cost of the Nikon version for the amount of use it will get, have to say that for me as someone who take photos just for the pleasure of it the Sigma is fine, I have used it for Judo, indoors and general walking around (it is quite heavy though), now I just have to get my technique better to make the most of it..:$
My copy is nice and sharp and quick enough to focus for what need, however if money was not an issue I would prob have gone for the Nikon hope that helps.
Cheers
Ian
 
Last edited:
I had this quandary before moving back to Canon.

Admittedly I was at the 'lower end' so I purchased for comparison (on a D90):

The sigma 70-200 (non macro)
The sigma 70-200 Macro I
Nikon AF-D 70-200 (two touch)
Nikon AF-S 70-200

For my needs (point to point & cycling) I eventually settled on the Sigma 70-200 Macro 1

The older sigma was OK but the worst of the group for sharpness
The Nikon AF-D was nice, but the Later Sigma and Nikon were much better

The AF-S and Macro I were actually quite similar in terms of image quality, the S I found had better centre sharpness at the long end and a marginal AF advantage in normal light and a significant AF advantage in low light, however being twice the price of the sigma I couldn't justify the additional expense.
 
^^^He's right.

Really, don't spend 1k on that Sigma, you will be dissapointed...
 
Agreed if you are going to dump 1k on a lens buy a VR1 they are around £900.00 now....... it will not disappoint and hold it's money better than the Sigma.
 
Something that our friend might not have got his head around yet.... buying secondhand photographic gear isn't looked down upon, the stuff still functions the same (its not like buying second hand tyres)...

I know many people who've never really hung around photographers must think "second hand" must mean Oxfam, but its not... it just makes good sense really.

I'd actively choose not to be one making a huge loss by taking the shiny box over the counter... well, certainly for glass anyway.
 
If I could get one for 900 that would be great as I still want a second body to go with my d200 again not sure what! and a wide zoom 17-55 24-70 and I want to spend as little as possible with no regrets that I should have brought something else!
 
I got that wrong I want a body to replace my 200 really.
 
Aaron said:
If I could get one for 900 that would be great as I still want a second body to go with my d200 again not sure what! and a wide zoom 17-55 24-70 and I want to spend as little as possible with no regrets that I should have brought something else!
Click to expand...

Agreed Desantnik

Aaron you should have no trouble picking one up for that sort of money, I just bought one to replace my VR11 as it suits my photography better.... I paid £880.00 for a mint in box etc. They are not making the 1K plus they were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top