Reading mode: Light Dark

SIGMA 70-200 OS finally shipping ?

Go to last post
OS and new optical design , with a few FLD and super SLD elements.
Waimak Stud said:
What the hell is that pricey monster? And may I ask, albeit naively, what is the difference between that and this half price chunker? http://www.araicamera.net/shop/prod_detail.php?pid=713893
--
http://dailybento.webs.com/

Hmmm, what shall I do in my signature? Outline the scores of lenses and camera bodies I have to make people think I'm a better photographer? Or maybe some inciteful pearl of wisdom from some revered and oft quoted dead photographer so that people know I'm well read on the topic?
Decisions decisions, maybe I'll just leave it blank.
Click to expand...
 
pandalee said:
so, basically you are trying to say you will pay 500 US more for Nikon name alone over Sigma of the same or identical quality?
Click to expand...
eh, excuse me?? i dont get it. when did i say that?

ok first of all, I am assuming you saying which one do i prefer 70-200 vr 1 or new sigma 70-200 OS for 1700 , correct???

if that was the case, i wuld say YES, i do prefer nikon.

and how can you say "Identical quality" anyway?? the sigma is not even out yet. how can you judge their performance.

actually i am not opposing sigma lens here, they are making great lens for sure but the sample variance and qc is horrendous from what i heard.

when i pay 1700 for lens (which is a lot of money for me, i dont know abt you), then dont i have a right to demand good QC?? if i spent that much, i wanna make sure my lens is great lens, not a dud. and with sigma, its kind of hit and miss. everyone knows that.

i really dont know about identical quality. nikon and sigma is not identical. nikn surpass sigma. sigma is probablu 80-90% as good as nikon, but they are not the same imo.
 
you said even if the Sigma 70-200OSHSM is as good as the Nikon VR2 which I have and 500USd or more expensive thna th Sigma , you would still prefer the Nikon.

this implied to me that you'd be more than glad paying 500USD premium for its being a Nikon lens..........like some Leica fans pay just insane amount of money for just its name , nothing wrong with that but I dont get it, I would choose a chepar lens unless it is significantly inferior to the others.

but that siad if the price difference between the new Sigma and the VR2 is about 150USD or so , I will choose the Nikon because the possible future compatibility issue ,etc.

I had a great sharp Sigma 10-20EX for my Canon 40D and when I sold my 40D and got 50D , it was not understanding the lens any more............and when I sold my 50d , I sold the Sigma with it.

I had the same lens for my D80 too and when I got my D300s , it did not work on it and the camera did not recognize the lens any more.

So, it is always risky to get Sigma but I just dont pay 500 more for my VR2 just its being a Nikon lens unless the VR2 is vastly better than the Sigma optically.
nikonfreak said:
pandalee said:
so, basically you are trying to say you will pay 500 US more for Nikon name alone over Sigma of the same or identical quality?
Click to expand...
eh, excuse me?? i dont get it. when did i say that?

ok first of all, I am assuming you saying which one do i prefer 70-200 vr 1 or new sigma 70-200 OS for 1700 , correct???

if that was the case, i wuld say YES, i do prefer nikon.

and how can you say "Identical quality" anyway?? the sigma is not even out yet. how can you judge their performance.

actually i am not opposing sigma lens here, they are making great lens for sure but the sample variance and qc is horrendous from what i heard.

when i pay 1700 for lens (which is a lot of money for me, i dont know abt you), then dont i have a right to demand good QC?? if i spent that much, i wanna make sure my lens is great lens, not a dud. and with sigma, its kind of hit and miss. everyone knows that.

i really dont know about identical quality. nikon and sigma is not identical. nikn surpass sigma. sigma is probablu 80-90% as good as nikon, but they are not the same imo.
Click to expand...
 
well actually what i meant was , i would rather get nikon VR 1 for $1700 bucks compared to new sigma. but even if i compared it with VR 2, i would still get VR 2 for that much.

and the reason is because of Sigma QC.

and now you telling me about 10-20 failing on your d300s , i am getting more cautious towards sigma now. i am having d40 btw now and just bought 10-20 as well and the focusing speed is fast as hell. but now, oh boy, maybe i have to be ready when i upgrade my body and then the lens just does not work.

did you check what happen? i dont know that this can happen like this. if that was the case, maybe i would stick to nikon from this moment on.
pandalee said:
you said even if the Sigma 70-200OSHSM is as good as the Nikon VR2 which I have and 500USd or more expensive thna th Sigma , you would still prefer the Nikon.

this implied to me that you'd be more than glad paying 500USD premium for its being a Nikon lens..........like some Leica fans pay just insane amount of money for just its name , nothing wrong with that but I dont get it, I would choose a chepar lens unless it is significantly inferior to the others.

but that siad if the price difference between the new Sigma and the VR2 is about 150USD or so , I will choose the Nikon because the possible future compatibility issue ,etc.

I had a great sharp Sigma 10-20EX for my Canon 40D and when I sold my 40D and got 50D , it was not understanding the lens any more............and when I sold my 50d , I sold the Sigma with it.

I had the same lens for my D80 too and when I got my D300s , it did not work on it and the camera did not recognize the lens any more.

So, it is always risky to get Sigma but I just dont pay 500 more for my VR2 just its being a Nikon lens unless the VR2 is vastly better than the Sigma optically.
Click to expand...
 
nikonfreak said:
well actually what i meant was , i would rather get nikon VR 1 for $1700 bucks compared to new sigma. but even if i compared it with VR 2, i would still get VR 2 for that much.
Click to expand...
I kind of understant it.
nikonfreak said:
and the reason is because of Sigma QC.
Click to expand...
I thought so and I had bad experience with Sigma too.
nikonfreak said:
and now you telling me about 10-20 failing on your d300s , i am getting more cautious towards sigma now. i am having d40 btw now and just bought 10-20 as well and the focusing speed is fast as hell. but now, oh boy, maybe i have to be ready when i upgrade my body and then the lens just does not work.
Click to expand...
well, I 've heard Sigma rarely have any AF or failing issue on a Nikon but always on a Canon, but personally all my Sigma works fine on my old bodies but new Nikon they get error 05 something.
nikonfreak said:
did you check what happen? i dont know that this can happen like this. if that was the case, maybe i would stick to nikon from this moment on.
Click to expand...
well, since it was not working on my D300s and D90 and I knew it would work perfectly fine on my D80 and my sister's D80 , so I sold it to her.

but I never have any sort of AF or error issue with my Tamron and I personally like them more than Sigma , but Sigma makes more interesting lenses with AFS motors , so I sometimes buy Sigmas.

I may get the 100-300f4HSM if they put OS in it.

I much prefer the Sigma 100-300f4HSM to the Nikon AF80-400VR or Canon 100-400LIS.

But unfortunately, I currently have the Canon 100-400f4.5-5.6LIS , it is good but I hate the push and pull zooming.

And I will sell it soon for a TC2.0E3 for my VR2 70-200f2.8.

But as you are a Nikon only user , I think you will be just fine to get any Sigma.

I think most of Sigma falling issues are reported with Canon bodies.
nikonfreak said:
pandalee said:
you said even if the Sigma 70-200OSHSM is as good as the Nikon VR2 which I have and 500USd or more expensive thna th Sigma , you would still prefer the Nikon.

this implied to me that you'd be more than glad paying 500USD premium for its being a Nikon lens..........like some Leica fans pay just insane amount of money for just its name , nothing wrong with that but I dont get it, I would choose a chepar lens unless it is significantly inferior to the others.

but that siad if the price difference between the new Sigma and the VR2 is about 150USD or so , I will choose the Nikon because the possible future compatibility issue ,etc.

I had a great sharp Sigma 10-20EX for my Canon 40D and when I sold my 40D and got 50D , it was not understanding the lens any more............and when I sold my 50d , I sold the Sigma with it.

I had the same lens for my D80 too and when I got my D300s , it did not work on it and the camera did not recognize the lens any more.

So, it is always risky to get Sigma but I just dont pay 500 more for my VR2 just its being a Nikon lens unless the VR2 is vastly better than the Sigma optically.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
pandalee said:
But as you are a Nikon only user , I think you will be just fine to get any Sigma.

I think most of Sigma falling issues are reported with Canon bodies.
Click to expand...
the sigma 10-20 works just fine for my d40. but 3-5 years from now, i am pretty sure i will upgrade to nikon d90 or above.

but heck, if the sigma wont work even with d90, i think its garbage.

i would rather pay more dollars but the stuff will last really long.

but fortunately this is 10-20 and only paid $480 for it. and boy, i ve had fun with it so far. even though its kind of soft on the edge.
 
You may not have been in photography long enough to know a little '70's history...in that timeframe, several third-party (non-camera mfgs) companies made lenses that were optically very close to or equal to Nikon lenses...Nikon lenses continued to sell for more and most professional photographers bought Nikon lenses. Why? Because there are a LOT of factors beyond mere optics in determining what a lens is "worth". Some are:

(1) selection of materials and lubricants such that the lens operates the same in a wide range of temperatures
(2) ruggedness of construction
(3) dust sealing
(4) resale value
(5) warranty
(6) support (a biggie for professionals)

(7) speed at which the diaphragm moves from fully open to fully stopped down (affects how fast of a sequence you can take)
hoof said:
pandalee wrote:

I think people are just assuming that because it's Sigma and not Nikon, it's not going to be as good as Nikon glass.
Click to expand...
 
nikonfreak said:
nikonfreak said:
But as you are a Nikon only user , I think you will be just fine to get any Sigma.

I think most of Sigma falling issues are reported with Canon bodies.
Click to expand...
the sigma 10-20 works just fine for my d40. but 3-5 years from now, i am pretty sure i will upgrade to nikon d90 or above.
Click to expand...
on a D90 it is fine , I confirmed , I had it on my D90 but did not work on my D300s.
nikonfreak said:
but heck, if the sigma wont work even with d90, i think its garbage.

i would rather pay more dollars but the stuff will last really long.

but fortunately this is 10-20 and only paid $480 for it. and boy, i ve had fun with it so far. even though its kind of soft on the edge.
Click to expand...
if you think you will keep it for more than just 1 generation or 2 , then I think you should get a first party lens. but only for current D40 and D90 , the Sigma is just fine.
 
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