70-200, 2.8 - Sigma or Nikon?

Spooky

Spooky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,555
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry to start another thread similar to one below but want to ask advice and was reluctant to bunny hop on some elses thread.

Anyhoot, I am about to purchase a new telephoto zoom and am looking at either the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM, or the Nikon 70-200 AFS 2.8 VRII. I was wondering about opinions of the third party leans over the brand lens?:thinking:

Cheers

Spooks
 
If you have the "cash to splash" then buy the Nikon (fantastic glass) however the sigma is a very capable lens, I would expect you would be happy with ethier.

My only consideration would be: if I was using the 70-200 for professional work, then I would go down the Nikon route, mainly for the Vr function, however if you want the 70-200 for your own personal use, the sigma is more than capable

dave
 
I would say it depends on how much cash you have....

If you have the cash then the Nikon will be best if not then the Sigma will do, i have a sigma and it is very good and perfectly adequate. That said when i do have the cash it will be the next thing i buy..!

Mac
 
davetucker said:
My only consideration would be: if I was using the 70-200 for professional work, then I would go down the Nikon route, mainly for the Vr function, however if you want the 70-200 for your own personal use, the sigma is more than capable
Click to expand...

we use sigmas for professional work and are more than happy to be honest..
 
The problem with 3rd party as I understand is the AF speed. I have a Nikon VR1 and think it a very good lens. Heavy, and a pain if handholding all day, but great IQ and I would go for the Nikon, if the VR2 is too much then a second hand VR1 should be available for around £1k
 
DaveTucker is spot on. The pros will go for the Nikon every time. I don't wish to appear condescending but amateurs, in my view, spend needlessly on lenses of a quality they just don't need.
 
I used a Sigma 70-200 for a couple of years for my motorsport work. it served me well but having swapped to an 80-200 Nikon, there's no comparison. The colours are better with the Nikon and it focuses quicker.
 
the Sigma HSM is actually not cheap at all (almost the same as nikon). but it's new and I think it will be very, very, very good. as all HSM's are. these are not the old, cheap 70-200mm's .
 
It is true but then the same goes out to those who buy expensive sport cars and don't race profesionally ! :)
 
I had a look at these two lenses in the new year ... and chose the Nikon.

There wasn't enough of a cost saving to make the Sigma an attractive offer and I really doubt that it's better than the Nikon (personal prejudice, perhaps :shrug:). Currently the Sigma seems to be about 1,300GBP and the Nikon 1,650GBP.

Also, if you were selling in a year's time, you might find that you'd lose nearly all of the money that you thought you'd saved by buying the Sigma (e.g. lose 250GBP on the Nikon or 550GBP on the Sigma), as 'pro' Nikon lenses (especially in such an popular focal range) do hold their value a lot better than third party lenses, unless the third party one is unique in some way :shrug: .

I'm not you (obviously :D), but I know myself and I know that when I buy something that I consider to be second best, I always, always, always end up regretting it (and very often sell whatever it is to buy the number one item, once the money becomes available :naughty:).

Just my $0.02
 
Naboo32 said:
Also, if you were selling in a year's time, you might find that you'd lose nearly all of the money that you thought you'd saved by buying the Sigma (e.g. lose 250GBP on the Nikon or 550GBP on the Sigma), as 'pro' Nikon lenses (especially in such an popular focal range) do hold their value a lot better than third party lenses,
Click to expand...

the 2nd hand value of the sigma seems to be sat at 400-450 at the moment. an absolute bargain and i cant imagine the price dropping much (if any) further?
 
Most of my photography is wedding / portraiture / live theatre. I also want a lens that will last - especially with the price ticket these two have. The overall opinion here seems to lie with the Nikon.

Thanks to all who have contributed (although probably not from my wife!)

Spooks
 
Spooky said:
I also want a lens that will last - especially with the price ticket these two have.
Click to expand...

my sig 70-200 first gen macro is over 3 years old now. the only wear and tear is a bit of peeling of the rubber coating on the tripod mount.. oh and a small bit by the lens mount where it got hit by a stone at a rally.

edit - not being argumentitive or anything, i just think the sigma gets a raw deal in peoples opinions just as its a 3rd party lens.
 
I used a Sigma 70-200 for a couple of years for my motorsport work. it served me well but having swapped to an 80-200 Nikon, there's no comparison. The colours are better with the Nikon and it focuses quicker.
 
neil_g said:
again more than happy with the sigma.. thats for motorsport, equestrian, bicycles.. etc
Click to expand...

The AF speed on my 10-20 Sigma was faster than my Canon 50 by several amounts.
 
Another vote for the Nikon here, I'm afraid.

Some Sigma lenses are very good indeed, but QC seems to be a bit hit and miss with no guarantee that the one you get will be good or 'just OK'.
Some owners report no problems or IQ dramas at all, while others with the same lens model have had nothing but grief...

As others have noted also: 2nd hand value of a mint Nikkor is well above what you'd get for a Sigma in similar condition if you ever had to sell. The percieved worth of the Nikkor is higher even if the difference in actual quality doesn't warrant it (though I happen to think it does...)...
 
neil_g said:
the 2nd hand value of the sigma seems to be sat at 400-450 at the moment. an absolute bargain and i cant imagine the price dropping much (if any) further?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that really does sound like a bargain - or a huge loss against the purchase price, depending on your situation ;).

As the OP specifically said that he wanted to "buy a new telephoto lens", I took that to mean brand new. If he meant 'new to himself', then a used Sigma could well be worth looking at :thumbs:.
 
neil_g said:
sorry that statement doesnt make sense? arent you effectively saying amateurs spend too much on good lenses?

or have i read that wrong? :thinking:
Click to expand...

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. The biggest I produce is only A3 and, although I use Nikkor lenses, I only do so because I'm a retired pro and, very occasionally, still get asked to do pro work. If it wasn't for that, I could easily get away with using cheaper lenses. (and a cheaper printer)
 
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. The biggest I produce is only A3 and, although I use Nikkor lenses, I only do so because I'm a retired pro and, very occasionally, still get asked to do pro work. If it wasn't for that, I could easily get away with using cheaper lenses.
Click to expand...

I think that's missing the point a bit. Why settle for less if you don't have to?...There's lots of analogies that could be stated; cars, clothes, electronics, hifi.
 
Why waste money on stuff you don't need? Are you going to see the difference on the average postcard print?
 
Unless you live in a mud hut, wear 20 year old farahs, walk everywhere and chop the heads off your own chickens for food I could probably ask you the same question.
 
Coaster said:
Why waste money on stuff you don't need? Are you going to see the difference on the average postcard print?
Click to expand...

Very true, but there's also a nice feeling to knowing you have the best kit you can afford - it also means there's no excuses if the photos don't turn out the way you want them to - no more: "if I had a better lens I could have done better..."

If you have the best kit available and the photos are still no good it's because you need to be a better photographer...:naughty:
 
Coaster said:
Why waste money on stuff you don't need? Are you going to see the difference on the average postcard print?
Click to expand...

What if you're an amateur hoping to turn pro in the future? Should I sell my Nikon glass and buy sigma until I'm "ready"? :lol:
 
Thanks everyone for your comments and discussions; can't believe this generated such a response but I do feel a lot more informed now.

To come back on a few points raised:

Starastin said:
will you purchase them via ebays grey sellers ? or a shop ?
Click to expand...

Naboo32 said:
As the OP specifically said that he wanted to "buy a new telephoto lens", I took that to mean brand new.
Click to expand...

It will be a shop purchase of a brand new lens

Coaster said:
Why waste money on stuff you don't need? Are you going to see the difference on the average postcard print?
Click to expand...

I print up to A1 and A0 (one of the benefits of working in an arts college is the very large format printer) and a lot of my stuff is enlarged to this size and hung up around the campus.

I think I am sold on the Nikon although will probably ask to road test the Sigma in advance of making a purchase. In my mind, the Nikon makes the most sense especially considering my impending career change! (Gonna drop some of my teaching commitments and try to pick up a few more togging ones:thumbs:)

Cheers for now

Spooks
 
Hi all,

Just to go back to the OP, Simon mentioned looking at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM, which if I'm correct is the latest Sigma 70-200 and cannot be purchased 2nd hand for around £400-450; that would more than likely be the first or 2nd version of the lens. The non OS version.

Although, if someone can find me a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM for £450 I'll be making the first offer on it.. lol :)

I've just bought a used Sigma 70-200 version 2 (the macro one) and have to say it is a fantastic lens. However, given the budget, I would certainly go for the Nikon.

Just my 2p worth.

Paul C
 
Psmeg said:
Hi all,

Simon mentioned looking at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM, which if I'm correct is the latest Sigma 70-200 and cannot be purchased 2nd hand for around £400-450; that would more than likely be the first or 2nd version of the lens. The non OS version.

Although, if someone can find me a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM for £450 I'll be making the first offer on it.. lol :)

Paul C
Click to expand...

You are right about the lens - it is the most recent generation that I am looking at. Will certainly road test them both tomorrow before making a decision; thanks for all your 2ps - how long will I need to leave this up for before they added up to the price of the lens?

Spooks
 
Naboo32 said:
Also, if you were selling in a year's time, you might find that you'd lose nearly all of the money that you thought you'd saved by buying the Sigma (e.g. lose 250GBP on the Nikon or 550GBP on the Sigma), as 'pro' Nikon lenses (especially in such an popular focal range) do hold their value a lot better than third party lenses, unless the third party one is unique in some way :shrug: .
Click to expand...

I would agree with this statement. I actually owned the VR1 version (bought 2007) and I owned it for about 18 months, and sold it for more than I had paid for it, the lens owed me nothing, and I got some nice results.

I had no hesitation buying the VR2 knowing it would be as good if not better than the VR1. The AF is very fast and accurate IMO. Given the same subject, lighting etc I often get more focus hunting from my Sigma 150-500 whereas the Nikon nails focus 99% of the time.
 
Psmeg said:
Hi all,

Just to go back to the OP, Simon mentioned looking at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM, which if I'm correct is the latest Sigma 70-200 and cannot be purchased 2nd hand for around £400-450; that would more than likely be the first or 2nd version of the lens. The non OS version.

Although, if someone can find me a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX OS HSM for £450 I'll be making the first offer on it.. lol :)

I've just bought a used Sigma 70-200 version 2 (the macro one) and have to say it is a fantastic lens. However, given the budget, I would certainly go for the Nikon.

Just my 2p worth.

Paul C
Click to expand...

my bad, missed the OS.

i definately was not factoring in the new model in the 2nd hand prices bit.
 
I have the Sigma 70-200mm lens that doesn't have the OS (earlier version). The lens is very good and fast, but if I had the money I would sell it or exchange for the new Nikon equivilant.
Realspeed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top