Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Nikon 70-200 2.8

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    Peter23
    Peter23  62 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 1:09 PM

    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

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    12 Oct 2012 - 1:09 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    GarethRobinson
    GarethRobinson e2 Member 8993 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 2:20 PM

    If you can produce pro shots the sigma 70-200mm is not going to be the limiting factor.

    Last Modified By GarethRobinson at 12 Oct 2012 - 2:21 PM
    thewilliam
    12 Oct 2012 - 3:43 PM

    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.

    GarethRobinson
    GarethRobinson e2 Member 8993 forum postsGarethRobinson vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 4:06 PM

    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.

    Last Modified By GarethRobinson at 12 Oct 2012 - 4:10 PM
    Cagey75
    Cagey75  342 forum posts Ireland
    12 Oct 2012 - 4:36 PM

    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
    StuartAt e2 Member 91033 forum postsStuartAt vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 7:53 PM

    Never used the Siggy, but I can vouch for the Nikon in VRII trim. Awesome lens, that produces lovely images.

    Graysta
    Graysta  91135 forum posts England
    12 Oct 2012 - 8:49 PM

    Another for the Nikon VR2 if you can live with its long focus lenth at 70mm

    Paul_Anthony
    12 Oct 2012 - 9:08 PM

    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
    Peter23  62 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 9:30 PM

    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
    12 Oct 2012 - 9:37 PM

    Many of them were taken with a Sigma 18-50 EX f2.8.

    ianrobinson
    ianrobinson e2 Member 41107 forum postsianrobinson vcard United Kingdom8 Constructive Critique Points
    12 Oct 2012 - 9:47 PM


    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


    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.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.