Reading mode: Light Dark

To replace or augment Sigma 70-200 OS?

Go to last post
K

kiirokurisu

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
385
Solutions
1
Reaction score
134
I am in a bit of a quandary regarding what to do with my Sigma 70-200 OS. A recent windfall is burning a hole in my pocket and I was contemplating replacing it with the superlative Nikon 70-200 VRII. However, if I sell my Sigma, the gap between what I'll get for it and the cost of the new lens is roughly equivalent to the price of a Nikon 70-200 f4. So now I'm thinking, maybe I should get the f4 then I will have both a fast 2.8 and a light/compact-ish f4. Thoughts/opinions?
 
Last edited:
Why do you want to replace the Sigma? What exactly about it do you want to upgrade? Are there any holes in your kit or other areas you wish to explore? Maybe the grass is actually greener or maybe both options duplicate much of what you already have. You also have the option of setting the money aside for a greater need in the future.
 
my question would be, what do you shoot? I have the 70-200 VR1 and really only use it for sports shooting.

How about this, if you can shoot with the sigma wide open at 2.8 and get good results I would stick with it. If not I would sell and upgrade
 
I would agree with Brev00 and lukep. You need to provide more info about what subjects you intend to shoot and what kind of results you are currently getting with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

Also, it's good to tell people whether you are shooting FX, DX or both. In this case your gear list shows that you have a D600.

If you want to shoot birds and other wildlife, you may want to get a Nikon 300mm f4 or a 300mm f2.8 VR.


Wayne
 
I'd add "Do you use this lens, and focal lengths a bunch?" You might be better off filling out a different hole in your lens toolbox. Maybe a 85mm F1.4? Maybe a 28mm F1.8? I agree with others that it doesn't make a lot of sense to upgrade or replace the 70-200 Sigma, unless you are having issues with it.
 
Thanks to those who have replied to so far. I will endeavour to give more information...

I shoot FX exclusively with my D600. I use the 70-200 a decent amount, although obviously I don't do photography professionally. I use it more for example than my 85 1.8G. I've used it for portrait headshots, up-close birds/animals (and distant landscapes. I have really no idea what my photographic future will hold but possibly it could include events, more portraiture and/or weddings.

I'm satisfied with the wide-open performance except towards the 200mm end, which is a known limitation of this lens. I quite like the rendering of the lens, which seems similar to the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I really like. I do find the OS a bit hit and miss. I find I still have to be extremely careful and use 1/focal length shutter speeds to get sharp results. Could be technique - so far I'm not really blaming the lens and I don't have anything else I can compare it to.

I'm not really hugely interested in doing a lot of bird/wildlife photography at this point, which is why I wasn't really considering a telephoto prime. I don't feel an 85mm 1.4 will give me much that the 85 1.8G I have already doesn't do (I could be wrong but the 1.8G is very well regarded).

If there was a modern 80-400 I would probably think seriously about one of those, but I can't bring myself to buy the current version.
 
Based on your supplied info, then perhaps consider this...

1 - Keep the Sigma for now.

2 - Get a fast (2.8) wide zoom or 2 wide primes - to cover the "under 70mm" aspect.


3 - Not sure if the following lenses have the resolving power of worthy of your D600 24mp sensor (I use D300), but...

In case you need more reach (sporting events, wildlife), you could get a Tamron 70-300 VC. Great value. My Nikon 70-300 VR gets soft after 250-260ish all the way to 300mm. I hear from a Nikon lens tech (at APS in Chicago, USA) that this could be caused by a worn cam ring. If it can't be fixed, then I'll most likely sell it and get a Tamron 70-300 VC (6-year USA warranty - not sure if there is an "equivalent" in your neck of the planet). :)

Good luck with your decision(s).



Wayne
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply Wayne.
dwa1 said:
dwa1 wrote:

Based on your supplied info, then perhaps consider this...

1 - Keep the Sigma for now.
Click to expand...
A distinct possibility :-)
dwa1 said:
2 - Get a fast (2.8) wide zoom or 2 wide primes - to cover the "under 70mm" aspect.
Click to expand...
I'm actually pretty darn happy with my 16-35/4 which covers the uses I have for focal lengths under 50mm. I previously had the 28/1.8G and really liked that lens, however I tended to use it mostly for landscapes stopped down, which the 16-35 at 28mm does just as well (IMHO).
dwa1 said:
3 - Not sure if the following lenses have the resolving power of worthy of your D600 24mp sensor (I use D300), but...

In case you need more reach (sporting events, wildlife), you could get a Tamron 70-300 VC. Great value. My Nikon 70-300 VR gets soft after 250-260ish all the way to 300mm. I hear from a Nikon lens tech (at APS in Chicago, USA) that this could be caused by a worn cam ring. If it can't be fixed, then I'll most likely sell it and get a Tamron 70-300 VC (6-year USA warranty - not sure if there is an "equivalent" in your neck of the planet). :)
Click to expand...
I have indeed been thinking of getting the Tamron 70-300. Either that or the 1.4x TC for the Sigma. I'm a bit of a rationalist - I try not to own gear that overlaps in function. Possibly a pipe dream but one can dream.
 
Better than Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II and $1000 less, Flame on!

highres-Tamron_70-200mm_VC_USD_A009jpg_1347349157.jpg





--
*/Mark/*
____________________________________________
____
- http://mark4pics.com
 
kiirokurisu said:
kiirokurisu wrote:

Thanks for taking the time to reply Wayne.
kiirokurisu said:
dwa1 wrote:

Based on your supplied info, then perhaps consider this...

1 - Keep the Sigma for now.
Click to expand...
A distinct possibility :-)
kiirokurisu said:
2 - Get a fast (2.8) wide zoom or 2 wide primes - to cover the "under 70mm" aspect.
Click to expand...
I'm actually pretty darn happy with my 16-35/4 which covers the uses I have for focal lengths under 50mm. I previously had the 28/1.8G and really liked that lens, however I tended to use it mostly for landscapes stopped down, which the 16-35 at 28mm does just as well (IMHO).
Click to expand...
I didn't remember the 16-35 f4. Looks like you are good on the wide end (especially for FX).
kiirokurisu said:
kiirokurisu said:
3 - Not sure if the following lenses have the resolving power of worthy of your D600 24mp sensor (I use D300), but...

In case you need more reach (sporting events, wildlife), you could get a Tamron 70-300 VC. Great value. My Nikon 70-300 VR gets soft after 250-260ish all the way to 300mm. I hear from a Nikon lens tech (at APS in Chicago, USA) that this could be caused by a worn cam ring. If it can't be fixed, then I'll most likely sell it and get a Tamron 70-300 VC (6-year USA warranty - not sure if there is an "equivalent" in your neck of the planet). :)
Click to expand...
I have indeed been thinking of getting the Tamron 70-300. Either that or the 1.4x TC for the Sigma. I'm a bit of a rationalist - I try not to own gear that overlaps in function. Possibly a pipe dream but one can dream.
Click to expand...
Well then, it sounds like you want something over 200mm? There is also the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS. I believe that there are 2 OS versions (the latest may not be released yet).

I tried the Sigma 1.4x TC on my 150 f2.8 macro (non-OS version). I got a bad copy of the TC and didn't want to play the bad copy roulette game, so I sent it back.


I hear that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR-II works well with the latest Nikon 1.4TC. But, many TCs will slow down the AF too much. Something to watch out for.

Based on your current and "possible future" needs, I would reconsider the Nikon 300 f4. On FX, it would give you a very nice focal length. It's not as long as you might think on that sensor size body. If more reach is needed down the road, then you could add a TC. I hear that these prime teles work very well with the "right" TC for the lens.

The other thing that no one has mentioned yet, is that you could invest in a second body in the DX line - a used D300s or a D7000. This would essentially extend your reach. fwiw, I carry a D300 and a D90 (soon to be replaced by a used D300s). I can react much quicker with 2 cameras with lenses mounted for the occasion - mostly butterflies and other nectaring insects.

Hope this helps. I'm sure that you'll get lots of good feedback. This is great forum for this kind of thing.


Wayne
 
I owned the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS DG for several months until I sold it for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1.

I haven't looked back.
 
Hmm... I'm tending in the direction of getting the 70-200 f4. Then I have a lighter smaller high quality lens for when I don't need f/2.8, and f/2.8 when it's truly needed.
 
kiirokurisu said:
kiirokurisu wrote:

Hmm... I'm tending in the direction of getting the 70-200 f4. Then I have a lighter smaller high quality lens for when I don't need f/2.8, and f/2.8 when it's truly needed.
Click to expand...
Then, I'm confused about your statement: "I try not to own gear that overlaps in function."


Wayne
 
dwa1 said:
dwa1 wrote:
dwa1 said:
kiirokurisu wrote:

Hmm... I'm tending in the direction of getting the 70-200 f4. Then I have a lighter smaller high quality lens for when I don't need f/2.8, and f/2.8 when it's truly needed.
Click to expand...
Then, I'm confused about your statement: "I try not to own gear that overlaps in function."

Wayne
Click to expand...
True... in this case because the cost of the two options is roughly equivalent.
 
Well, I took the plunge and bought a Nikon 70-200 f/4G and couldn't be happier. The difference in image quality (to my particular copy of the Sigma) is night and day, in addition to the added 'X-factor' that the Nano crystal coating gives. Having owned several N lenses now I've come to recognise the unique rendering it gives and I'm totally hooked. Nikon has an absolute winner in this lens - so much lighter and easier to handle than the f/2.8 lenses.
 
Is the Sigma lacking? In what area? If not, then the money that's burning a hole in your pocket will just be burned. Is there any other part of your kit, that needs to be upgraded or added to?
 
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