Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Nikon 70-200 2.8


Peter23 6 23 2
12 Oct 2012 1:09PM
Now I know the Nikon will be quite a bit better but at half the price what I want to know is anyone with the sigma experience does it take pro shots? I don't think I can stretch to the nikons price! Any help on this would be really appreciated guys its very important!!

Pete Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

12 Oct 2012 2:20PM
If you can produce pro shots the sigma 70-200mm is not going to be the limiting factor.
thewilliam 6 4.8k
12 Oct 2012 3:43PM
It really depends on how much use the lens will get and what sort of pix you intend to take.

Most lenses are good when new and all but a few are good at f8. The nikon performs well when wide open.

Nikon professional lenses are extremely rugged and so they'll work after a lot of use and a surprising amount of abuse. It'll keep its market value and this will reduce the "total cost of ownership" to much the same as the Stigma.
12 Oct 2012 4:06PM
thewilliam most not off used the sigma 70-200mm 2.8Tongue

Pete go try the sigma out at a local shop, they are built like a tank and sharp at f3.2, focus is fast and boken is lovely. Add the sigma 1.4tc very little drop in image quality also.
Cagey75 3 42 Ireland
12 Oct 2012 4:36PM
I had the Sigma HSM II, didn't like it. The copy I had, at least, was soft wide open, and produced terrible CA and fringing at 200mm. I now have the Nikon VRII and love it. Costly, but it's an investment. Nikon lenses don't lose much value over time where the sigma will. I have heard that the newer OS Sigma is better than the older one at least. And the price isn't too bad.
StuartAt e2
9 1.0k 6 England
12 Oct 2012 7:53PM
Never used the Siggy, but I can vouch for the Nikon in VRII trim. Awesome lens, that produces lovely images.
Graysta 9 1.1k England
12 Oct 2012 8:49PM
Another for the Nikon VR2 if you can live with its long focus lenth at 70mm
Paul_Anthony 2 384 4 Wales
12 Oct 2012 9:08PM
I have always been a fan of all of the Sigma EX f2.8 Lenses, all the ones I have used have produced Sharp, Contrasty images. They focus swiftly and fairly quietly and I fully intend on purchasing more.

No doubt that Nikons Top End Lenses are more robust, but personally I am pretty careful with my kit, even photographing weddings I rarely knock my cameras or lenses around too much and on the odd occasion I have given them a bit of a bump, the Siggys have more than stood up to the test, and even when I have been caught in the occasional rain shower I have not had any problems. You often find that as a wedding tog you go where the Bride, Groom and Guests go, and thats rarely out in the pouring rain, assistants are more than capable of carrying a sturdy umbrella as well as a camera bag Grin

Paul.
Peter23 6 23 2
12 Oct 2012 9:30PM
Thanks everyone. Paul, your wedding photos on your profile, what lens do you use for most of those, you don't have exif data on your photos!

For everyone else, is the Nikon VR I much different from the VR II because the price difference is quite allot.

Pete
Paul_Anthony 2 384 4 Wales
12 Oct 2012 9:37PM
Many of them were taken with a Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8.
ianrobinson e2
5 1.2k 8 United Kingdom
12 Oct 2012 9:47PM

Quote:and boken is lovely


I take it you mean bokeh or background softness.

I had a sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and hated it, maybe i was one of the many unlucky ones to get the duff one from sigma, i got a canon 70-200mm f2.8 is usm and paid the price, but worth every single penny and more, a stunning lens and by all accounts the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is like the canon.

Personally I would be going for the Nikon all day long.
scottishphototours 10 2.6k 2 Scotland
13 Oct 2012 3:46PM

Quote:For everyone else, is the Nikon VR I much different from the VR II because the price difference is quite a lot.


The VR1 will show a very, very, very slight darkening of the corners on an FX camera, but will be perfect on a DX camera. The VR2 was partly introduced to combat this FX sensor flaw and also has a few improvements in handling and a better tripod collar. Will you see a difference in images - absolutely not if used on DX but slightly on FX, but you can get around this on FX by zooming out slightly and cropping later in PS.

You know Sigma make excellent lenses, but I have to say that this Nikkor is without doubt flawless, and I would not hesitate to spend money on one.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.