Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 70-200vr VS. SIGMA 70-200MM F2.8

Go to last post
D

danny2000

Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada, US
I'm in the market to upgrade my 70-300 sigma lens and can't decide if it's worth it to spend the extra $1000 for the 70-200vr. Can you give me some suggestions?

-Danny
 
danny2000 said:
I'm in the market to upgrade my 70-300 sigma lens and can't decide
if it's worth it to spend the extra $1000 for the 70-200vr. Can you
give me some suggestions?

-Danny
Click to expand...
Only you can decide if nikkor is worth the extra cash.

BUT... if you have the money to burn, why not get the best ?

Kindest
--
Regards
Paul L.
 
Once you get the Nikon 70-200VR, IMHO you will never look back...I know its hard to decide, but consider how important is Photography to you, when you amortize to extra $$ for Nikon over the rest of your life, and the true pleasure it should bring to you..what can I say.

Good Luck
 
Only you can decide for yourself. I can speak only for myself and I think $1600 is a real bargain for such a superb lens. Let me just say that if someone stole my 70-200 and the price doubled to $3200 I would still buy it.
--
Jake
 
sfnikon said:
Only you can decide for yourself. I can speak only for myself and
I think $1600 is a real bargain for such a superb lens. Let me
just say that if someone stole my 70-200 and the price doubled to
$3200 I would still buy it.
Click to expand...
Lemme know when that happens, Jake. I'll sell you my nikkor 70-200 for $3200 and keep my sigma 70-200. :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
The bottom line is how important is vr. If the vr feature is worth $1000, go fo it. I have the sigma. I think the glass is almost if not as good as the nikon. I use it with the sigma 1.4 teleconverter. It is a great lens combo. The 1.4 converter is less than $200. I do not regret buying the sigma even though I could afford the nikon. I had rather use the extra $ to buy the tokina 12-24 and other accessories.

Forest
 
Kerry Pierce said:
sfnikon said:
Only you can decide for yourself. I can speak only for myself and
I think $1600 is a real bargain for such a superb lens. Let me
just say that if someone stole my 70-200 and the price doubled to
$3200 I would still buy it.
Click to expand...
Lemme know when that happens, Jake. I'll sell you my nikkor 70-200
for $3200 and keep my sigma 70-200. :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
Click to expand...
Any particular reason you have two 70-200/2,8 ?

(note that i wouldnt ask this in the lens forum, i would just assume you had them for bragging rights)

--
Regards
Paul L.
 
I have owned both lenses. To me I do not think the VR is worth $1000 over the Sigma, but with that said, I still own the VR and sold the Sigma just because I would rather have Nikon Glass.. thats it.. Is it worth it.. probably not, is the Nikon performance that muhc better? Only if you need VR.
 
sfnikon said:
Only you can decide for yourself. I can speak only for myself and
I think $1600 is a real bargain for such a superb lens. Let me
just say that if someone stole my 70-200 and the price doubled to
$3200 I would still buy it.
Click to expand...
I'd use the $3200 for a grey market 200/2VR if I were in the same situation.

Make no mistake though, the Nikkor 70-200VR is probably the best non-super tele** I have owned among all Canon and Nikon mount lenses. But for $3200, I'll get a super-tele instead.

super teles are the likes of 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 120-300/2.8, 200-400/4, 500/4, 600/4, etc.

--
Brian
http://www.pbase.com/drip
 
Paul.R.Lindqvist said:
Any particular reason you have two 70-200/2,8 ?
(note that i wouldnt ask this in the lens forum, i would just
assume you had them for bragging rights)
Click to expand...
Hi Paul,

I'd never have those 2 for bragging rights. :-) The reason I have both is that I bought the sigma first and used it for 2 years. Very happy with it. I bought the nikkor, only because of the VR. I am shooting in situations now where the VR makes a difference, sometimes significant. Otherwise, I'd still be using the sigma. I don't find much difference in handling, AF speed or IQ, in real world use, except for the VR. Actually, the sigma might be slightly sharper wide open.

I haven't sold the sigma, because I don't really need to do so and now use it as a backup to the nikkor. But, I'll probably get around to selling it, to help fund another lens purchase. I'd kinda like to have the 105dc. :)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
I was in your position a while ago, when I decided to upgrade my 80-200 to a silent-motor equivalent - the 80-200 AFs being not available, I tried 2 copies of the Sigma together with the Nikkor and I found them both softer wide open, more CA and the HSM is slower than the Nikkor AFs too; build & handling is also slightly better on the Nikkor. Plus, the Nikkor had VR which came useful more than once - so, I gladly paid the almost 1000 US difference and got the Nikkor. IQ is superb, as is build; a pleasure to use, and always helds great results. My suggestion, if you have the cash, is go with the Nikkor - you will never regret it. Best regards,

Vieri

--
equipment in profile
my professional website:
http://www.madshutter.com

more stuff (still worth a look I hope):
http://www.pbase.com/vieripbase
 
...the Sigma is better than 95% as good as the Nikkor. What the Sigma doesn't provide is the contrast, color rendition and saturation, build quality and AF speed (and perhaps accuracy) of the Nikkor. If you have an arsenal of Nikkor lenses and need consistent color response - say for the sake of post processing ease - then the Nikkor is the way to go. For most amateurs shooting for their own edification, the Sigma is a far better deal with the caveat that you may have minor hassles of compatibility with future Nikon bodies. But Sigma are generally very good about retrofitting for about 10 years down the road. Older than that, however, and they leave you high and dry. I was told, upon asking about having my Sigma 70-210/2.8 APO updated to work with digital EOS cameras, that Sigma doesn't support lenses more than two generations old. If you don't keep gear that long, generally, no big deal.
sfnikon said:
Only you can decide for yourself. I can speak only for myself and
I think $1600 is a real bargain for such a superb lens. Let me
just say that if someone stole my 70-200 and the price doubled to
$3200 I would still buy it.
--
Jake
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna
 
I just processed the shots from a fashion shoot with my Sigma 70-200 and my Nikkors blow it out of the water for constrast, sharpness wide open, AF speed, and color rendition. It's not that I regret buying it per say, but now that I've become more serious about my work, the 70-200VR is looking better and better.

Chris
 
I've had 3 examples of the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG HSM Macro and is was really dissapointing. The images were extremely soft when shooting at 200 mm wide open.

I've now bought the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR and I'm so happy with it. I did have the money for it in the beginning (before buyng the Sigma) but I wanted to save my money. Now, when I have the Nikkor, I know I should have bought this lens from the beginning.

I have tried a working example of the Sigma, but the Nikkor is just the better lens.

You might regret buyng the Sigma after some time (if you want VR), but you will never regret buyng the Nikkor.

--
Nikon D200
Nikon AF-S 18-70/3.5-4.5
Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR

Nikon SB-600 Speedlight Flash
Nikon MB-D200 Battery Grip
 
What about the incredible bokah of the Nikon 70-200.
Does the Sigma compare?

 
...and it gets more complex (the appearance of the OOF areas) as the aperture closes down. Then again, if you really want nice OOF areas, is there anything nicer than one of the DC Nikkors, which on DX are plenty long enough for compression effects and fast enough, at f/2, for most available darkness applications.
Ted B said:
What about the incredible bokah of the Nikon 70-200.
Does the Sigma compare?

Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna
 
danny2000 said:
I'm in the market to upgrade my 70-300 sigma lens and can't decide
if it's worth it to spend the extra $1000 for the 70-200vr. Can you
give me some suggestions?

-Danny
Click to expand...
The 70-200 VR is a truly wonderful lens EXCEPT that it weighs more than 3 pounds and is an absolute pain to lug around. I have one and I find that I rarely use it because of the weight. I also have an 18-200 and that stays on the camera 99% of the time, except when I REALLY need the additional speed of the 70-200.

--
Harvey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top