70-200, 2.8 - Sigma or Nikon?

neil_g said:
my bad, missed the OS.

i definately was not factoring in the new model in the 2nd hand prices bit.
Click to expand...

No problem - it was useful having those thoughts thrown into the mix, especially as it opened up the thread to discussing how lenses retain their value.

Spooks
 
Good luck with your decision which ever way you go on this, i had the same battle in my mind few few weeks back trying to decide between the non os sigma, nikon 70-200 vr1 and an older used 80-200 af-s but in the end came to the conlusion the weight and portability of these would mean its left at home most of the time unless i had a specific reason to use it, its a lot of money to own as an ornament. (yeah buying one is an ego booster but :suspect:)

Gave in and bought the 70-300 vr which im more than happy with, vr2 is amazing compared to my old 55-200 vr1, due to MS i have more need for it than most, i can happily shoot handheld now as the vr2 keeps its sharp, defo 2-3 stops of benefit! I only mention this because if you go Nikon you really should save few more £'s and go vr2!
 
Took possession of my new Nikon lens last night - it is a beast and I dare say a certain side of my family will mock me for having something more than a little phallic attached to my face but who cares?

Now - for something to shoot!!!

Spooks
 
:clap:

What a stunner - I cant wait to see some shots!
 
Coaster said:
What I'm saying is that the average amateur doesn't need pro quality lenses. What's the biggest print made by the average amateur? Probably an A4 or smaller......
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but TBH, it's a bit of a grey area in reality.

Okay, a pro shooter (say a footy shooter) will use high-end gear and not 3rd party (siggy etc) stuff but the end result – the back page of a red top – doesn't warrant the use of said equipment other than to enable the togger to get the shot (possibly better AF, faster f-stop etc...). The print quality of a red top is so **** poor that a kit lens could effectively get you the shot.

However, the use of that lens to get the best overall quality means further reproduction will be possible in high-end printing situations like books etc. The kit lens wouldn't enable this as much, if you get my drift.

I buy Nikon because I'm a gear snob, plain and simple. I do own a Tamron lens, but that's because it's good and I couldn't afford the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. That's my next buy though. I suppose sports pro (etc...) have high end, OEM stuff because A) it pays for itself sand B) they get a deal through the manufacturer.

Nowt wrong with 3rd-party stuff but there will always be people who can afford the best and others who can't. It's just a case of seeing whether they can produce results from them that they (and sometimes others) like... :)
 
specialman said:
..I suppose sports pro (etc...) have high end, OEM stuff because A) it pays for itself sand B) they get a deal through the manufacturer...
Click to expand...

Not as much as you'd think.

In prep for 'going solo' again after my time in the Mob, I canvassed every tog who came out to Afghan and with one exception they didn't get a discount on kit.

The exception was one guy who'd initially bought new (Canon) and swapped over to Nikon - Nikon discounted his entire kit to less than the price of a single D3...:eek:

For the most part, togs are either given an allowance to buy the kit they want, they specify what they want and the paper or agency buys it for them, or the paper or agency buys them Nikon or Canon (depending on which marque they have an arrangement with) and they have no choice in what they get...that last would be the only case where a discount would be applicable...

Freelances buy their kit at high-street prices same as the rest of us, but they do have access to 'loan' equipment from the manufacturers/importers for specific jobs, like Wimbledon, other Sports tournaments etc...
 
Rob, that surprises me massively. I was under the impression the agency togs were buying their own but getting big discounts to 'spread the word', so to speak.

I heard similar stories about Canon users moving to Nikon and Nikon effectively giving them massive savings just to take the Canon gear off the scene. A former employee at my place had more money than sense and bought two 1D Mk3s, loads of fast glass like 24-70s, 16-35s, 300mm f/2.8s and Nikon gave him a right result on it when he wanted to move over to D3s. Think it cost him virtually nothing for a like-for-like swap.

Mad how it all works..... :)
 
smoothedit said:
You sure it just wasn't because the Nikon staff wanted a Canon camera? :naughty::naughty:
Click to expand...

I think you're right, Matt, they needed to test it to see where they were going wrong!:clap:
 
Well I cannot believe I am going to say this but as some are aware I'm not a fan of Sigma for reason I won't bother going over again.................... but I have to say the Siggy 70-200 Macro latest version I had was actually pretty bloody good. I do miss it especially now the summer is here and the little bugs are out. Was it as good as the Nikon I now have ?

No the Nikon has faster autofocus, better contrast and colour and is razor sharp across the board and can take a good soaking. Don't discount the Siggy though, it really depend if you the think the difference in cost is worth it to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top