70-200mm 2.8

S

Simmy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
254
Edit My Images
Yes
I bet this question has been asked before and i have done a fair bit of research but cant really find what i need to know

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 vr £800-900 second hand

Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 £700-800 brand new

is it like night and day the difference between these to lens im wondering if its worth spending the little bit more and getting the nikon version or will i be more than happy with the sigma?

ill be shooting mainly amature football/cricket and some portairs shoots with the lens..

if people have any photos they have taken with the lenses can they post up examples

Cheers Simmy
 
I would go for the s/h Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 vrI,has a better feel to it for me and very sharp :)
 
Simmy said:
I bet this question has been asked before and i have done a fair bit of research but cant really find what i need to know

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 vr £800-900 second hand

Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 £700-800 brand new

is it like night and day the difference between these to lens im wondering if its worth spending the little bit more and getting the nikon version or will i be more than happy with the sigma?

ill be shooting mainly amature football/cricket and some portairs shoots with the lens..

if people have any photos they have taken with the lenses can they post up examples

Cheers Simmy
Click to expand...

Can you wait for the new version of the Tamron 70-200mm? I would.

http://www.tamron.com/en/news/2012/0913_01.html
 
Im more than happy with my sigma, though its not the OS version. I paid £350 for it.
I was never wowed my my Nikon 70-200 though..

A few samples..


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_0778 by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Orangutang by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
I've been pondering the same thing. Though more on the VRII vs the Sigma OS version. I've read enough reviews now, to convince me to spend the extra. The Sigma OS is €1100 over here. I know I could get it online cheaper, but after bad experience with their older, HSM II version from online [the copy I got was soft wide open and suffered bad CA] , I would prefer buy a sigma in Brisks & mortar in case of any issues.

In the end, I just ordered the Nikon VRII this morning, online, for €1700. Considering it is €2400! in stores over here, I still feel like I saved money, and got the best lens in it's class. All reviews I looked up on the latest Sigma suggested it was soft wide open. It would be a great f/4 lens, but that's not why we buy 2.8 lenses, to stop them down.

If it's a case of wanting the better quality, but it's a money issue - wait. Don't settle for seconds. Save the bit extra and get the Nikon. The VR1 will outshine the Sigma.
 
Last edited:
Both my Father and I have the same camera bodies (Nikon D700). My Father has the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS. On the occasions where we have gone out shooting for the day, he has always remarked that he cannot tell the difference in the shots from the two lenses.

If you but the Sigma new, from UK stock, I believe they are offering a 3 year warranty on them.
 
hmm interesting! i will be using it on a d5100 so will not be full frame

so im hoping with a crop it will be more like a 105-300mm,

im looking at examples of the sigma and impressed whats the difference on the build quality?

nick have u got some examples with the sigma cheers
 
No worries, ill dig some out for you tonight.

As far as build quality goes, IMO at least, they feel pretty similar. I think the Nikon VR1 possibly feels a little more substantial than the VR2 and Sigma OS though...
 
Test them both at 2.8. The Sigma is supposedly tack sharp at f/4 - but you don't buy it as an f/4 lens.

Also compare them both at 200mm at 2.8. I'm guessing you'll see a remarkable difference. And going on word isn't enough, got any side by side comparisons? Genuinely interested.
 
If you want to wait until I see my Father in January ill happily get him to sort some shots out for me with his Nikon version... ;0)
 
I have the Canon fit non OS Sigma and its very good (HSM II). Super fast AF and very sharp, even wide open.

I tested it against the Canon non IS (mk 1) and there was no noticeable difference.
 
I hired a Nikon 70-200 VRII and whilst the lens was excellent I didn't like the fact the zoom ring was halfway down the barrel, it made it a little unsteady when zooming on a moving object as I didnt seem to be supporting the weight evenly (probably just me). Got the Sigma yesterday as its the other way round - zoom ring near the front of the lens and focus ring further back - seems much more stable. Have to say I like the new smooth finish on the Sigma.
 
You don't hear many complain about the Nikon. In any way.

All I know is I had the HSM II Sigma and it was horrible wide open. Maybe I'm fussier than most? I want 2.8 to be sharp. I had a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon and that managed it.
 
I've heard amazing things about the VRII and if budget is no problem or you are earning money from it..I would buy that
the sigma 70-200 OS is better on a cropped camera so I'm told and I have no complaints on my canon cropped sensor. 2nd hand less than £700
Wide open it's okay for me, but it is noticeably better at f3.2
I would want the canon or nikon original but for my purposes will live with the sigma
in the studio I've been very happy with the sigma and when the action is fast, ultimate sharpness isn't a huge problem
 
Why are you hiding exif data? It's f/4 that image isn't it? :lol: :P Just kidding, I'll take your word for it.

Looks a great copy you got. You're lucky, considering Sigma's QC track record [please sigma fans don't come back on that one, I've had 3 fail sigma lenses, though others have had more success with them]
 
Can see from the DOF its not F4.

Camera Nikon D700
Exposure 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

Yeah, it was a great copy, had to regrettably sell to fund towards a new car :( Best Sigma Ive ever had, had the OS in 2 mounts now with no issues, QC on the higher end models is a lot better than the older/cheaper lenses. Have had issues with a fair few myself.
 
Last edited:
Mine is also pin sharp wide open. I think all my samples are at f/2.8.

I find the sigma is built as well as the Nikon, although the sigma covering is a bit more easily marked over the Nikon.
 
I find the new finish much nicer/more durable than the old sandpaper finish that peeled.
 
twist said:
Can see from the DOF its not F4.

Camera Nikon D700
Exposure 0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 200 mm
ISO Speed 200
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Flash No Flash

Yeah, it was a great copy, had to regrettably sell to fund towards a new car :( Best Sigma Ive ever had, had the OS in 2 mounts now with no issues, QC on the higher end models is a lot better than the older/cheaper lenses. Have had issues with a fair few myself.
Click to expand...

Though it is possible to get very shallow DOF at f/4 + 200mm, I do believe it's 2.8 ;) If I'd seen your post this morning I might have gone for the OS. But I did find a great deal on a VRII and I'm happy with that. Anyone with a tighter budget should definitely consider the Sigma once it is the newer OS version.
 
If I had the extra funds Id also go VR2, but Id go new Sigma OS over used VR1.
 
Do you really need the VR?
 
I've had the older, non OS Sigma for a few years now and I've never had any sharpness issues with it, or any other problems. In fact, I've had no problems with any of my Sigmas but then again, they're all EX models, so higher end.

Mine doesn't get much use these days since I very rarely need the extra stops it give me over my 70-300mm VR Nikkor, which has the added extra 100mm of FL. I should add that I use an FF body (D700) and find corner sharpness acceptable, even wide open on the Sigma. Yes, The Nikon is better but is it worth the extra over a tested Sigma? Hard to tell!
 
Wow how many threads on this same subject has there been over the last couple of weeks.

This was my reply in the last thread about these,

Like when buying any high end piece of equipment I debated for a long time over which way to go and looked at options from all the manufacturers when I was looking to buy my 70-200.

I discounted the Tokina straight away as while I love the build quality of there glass I couldn't find enough info on comparisons between it and the rest and didn't know anyone else who had one. In my opinion everyone gets caught up too much in test charts etc. anyway and real world circumstances are much more important. While reviews etc. are useful I always prefer to hear first hand from end users or try something myself before making a decision on what for me is a fairly expensive item.

I read many reviews on the Tamron Vs the Sigma O.S and the Tamron pretty much always came in a poor second. The Tamron seemed to be only every recommended on price and that was mainly due to how over priced the Sigma was on launch. For a couple of hundred pound more the Sigma is better built, has better A.F, better optics and has the O.S. Having had Tarmon and Sigma gear before I also know that while both can have issues with lenses, Tamron certainly appear to have more issues with back focusing etc.

Deciding between the Nikon version and the Sigma was more difficult. I borrowed a friends AF-S 80-200 and had a play with his 70-200 vr2 and was impressed with the quality of the build but hated the weight and bulk of the 80-200 but was blown away by the optics and the V.R on the 70-200.

Then the decision came down to cost. The Sigma is well worth the extra couple of hundred pounds more than the Tamron, so that was a no brainer. I decided that the Nikon was not worth more than twice the cost of the Sigma for me and eventually decided to run with it after much deliberation. For the same price as it would of cost me to buy the Nikon even second hand, I was able to buy the Sigma, a D300 as a spare body and a 2x teleconverter and still had some change left over.

Now that I have had the Sigma for a little while I can honestly say I am delighted with it. I have no issues with it all, the A.F in real world conditions is super fast and I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon. In terms of sharpness I have not noticed any difference between it and the Nikon 70-200 even though test charts and reviews online say it is not as sharp in the corners, in my opinion from using both it is sharper than the 80-200. I let my friend who has both the 80-200 and the 70-200 have a play with the Sigma and he agrees.

No doubt that there is likely poor copies of the Sigma around as you would expect and this in no doubt accounts for some of the reviews etc. online. My copy is perfect, if it had not of been I would of sold it and got the Nikon.

I let TonyNI on here have a play with it as he was having the same problems making a decision as I was and he went straight out and bought one as well.
Click to expand...
 
The sigma is tremendous value for money! You won't see any difference at all in normal prints 10x8 etc but pixel peepers may see a little difference. I love mine but had money have been no object I'd of had the VR2.

Yeah tommy and yours was set to F4 when I turned on the camera lol
 
Last edited:
I love how people come in droves to defend a lump of third party glass :D

Tommy, the tamron 70-200 is apparently optically superior to any version of the sigma 70-200, don't know what reviews you read. Where the tamron failed was on AF. That's why it was rated lower. Nothing to do with price. It'll be interesting to see how their VC version does.

I don't care how many Sigma supporters appear, the old HSM II copy I got, brand new, was soft wide open out of the box. It had back focus issues, albeit slightly, and had awful CA and fringing at 200mm. Now, we buy a 2.8 70-200 for many reasons. 2 of the main ones, are "2.8" and "200mm" - I got rid of it fast and bought a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon. Loved that glass. Much sharper at ever level than the sigma. I've since sold it on, as part of my DX to FX move, and now I'm looking to replace it. The Nikon 70-200 is the logical choice.

It's nice to see the Sigma OS version has improved on things, but, it's still sigma. And I've had 3 bad experiences with their lenses to date. That's 3 too many in my book. Never had any issue with any tamron, sony, minolta or Nikon lens. [I used to shoot Sony btw, I'm far from a Nikon fanboy!]

People can say the Sigma is sharp 'till the cows come home. But my sigma lenses were not. One of them, ok - an older 70-300 "macro" - just fell apart after a few months. The motor just bust in it, without any fall or smack or pressure. The gears just ... ground out. I used it as a manual lens for months before finally selling it for practically nothing, as a manual only lens. Another sigma I had also back focused and the AF was so slow I'd miss a snail on the move.

Just saying ...
 
TonyNI said:
The sigma is tremendous value for money! You won't see any difference at all in normal prints 10x8 etc but pixel peepers may see a little difference. I love mine but had money have been no object I'd of had the VR2.

Yeah tommy and yours was set to F4 when I turned on the camera lol
Click to expand...

Might of been I didn't have the Sigma on the body when I brought it in to you and I took the 85mm of the body before chucking it in the bag.

Do you want to try the 1.4 t.c? Now is as good at time as any as the Sigma and the 2x is going on loan for a few days so I won't be able to use it anyway.
 
Cagey75 said:
I love how people come in droves to defend a lump of third party glass :D

Tommy, the tamron 70-200 is apparently optically superior to any version of the sigma 70-200, don't know what reviews you read. Where the tamron failed was on AF. That's why it was rated lower. Nothing to do with price. It'll be interesting to see how their VC version does.

I don't care how many Sigma supporters appear, the old HSM II copy I got, brand new, was soft wide open out of the box. It had back focus issues, albeit slightly, and had awful CA and fringing at 200mm. Now, we buy a 2.8 70-200 for many reasons. 2 of the main ones, are "2.8" and "200mm" - I got rid of it fast and bought a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon. Loved that glass. Much sharper at ever level than the sigma. I've since sold it on, as part of my DX to FX move, and now I'm looking to replace it. The Nikon 70-200 is the logical choice.

It's nice to see the Sigma OS version has improved on things, but, it's still sigma. And I've had 3 bad experiences with their lenses to date. That's 3 too many in my book. Never had any issue with any tamron, sony, minolta or Nikon lens.

People can say the Sigma is sharp 'till the cows come home. But my sigma lenses were not. One of them, ok - an older 70-300 "macro" - just fell apart after a few months. The motor just bust in it, without any fall or smack or pressure. The gears just ... ground out. I used it as a manual lens for months before finally selling it for practically nothing, as a manual only lens. Another sigma I had also back focused and the AF was so slow I'd miss a snail on the move.

Just saying ...
Click to expand...

Yawn...
 
Cagey75 said:
I love how people come in droves to defend a lump of third party glass :D

Tommy, the tamron 70-200 is apparently optically superior to any version of the sigma 70-200, don't know what reviews you read. Where the tamron failed was on AF. That's why it was rated lower. Nothing to do with price. It'll be interesting to see how their VC version does.

I don't care how many Sigma supporters appear, the old HSM II copy I got, brand new, was soft wide open out of the box. It had back focus issues, albeit slightly, and had awful CA and fringing at 200mm. Now, we buy a 2.8 70-200 for many reasons. 2 of the main ones, are "2.8" and "200mm" - I got rid of it fast and bought a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon. Loved that glass. Much sharper at ever level than the sigma. I've since sold it on, as part of my DX to FX move, and now I'm looking to replace it. The Nikon 70-200 is the logical choice.

It's nice to see the Sigma OS version has improved on things, but, it's still sigma. And I've had 3 bad experiences with their lenses to date. That's 3 too many in my book. Never had any issue with any tamron, sony, minolta or Nikon lens. [I used to shoot Sony btw, I'm far from a Nikon fanboy!]

People can say the Sigma is sharp 'till the cows come home. But my sigma lenses were not. One of them, ok - an older 70-300 "macro" - just fell apart after a few months. The motor just bust in it, without any fall or smack or pressure. The gears just ... ground out. I used it as a manual lens for months before finally selling it for practically nothing, as a manual only lens. Another sigma I had also back focused and the AF was so slow I'd miss a snail on the move.

Just saying ...
Click to expand...


And yet.....

Cagey75 said:
Though it is possible to get very shallow DOF at f/4 + 200mm, I do believe it's 2.8 ;) If I'd seen your post this morning I might have gone for the OS. But I did find a great deal on a VRII and I'm happy with that. Anyone with a tighter budget should definitely consider the Sigma once it is the newer OS version.
Click to expand...

Lolz at someone obviously trying to defend there expensive purchase.
 
Cagey75 said:
I love how people come in droves to defend a lump of third party glass :D

Tommy, the tamron 70-200 is apparently optically superior to any version of the sigma 70-200, don't know what reviews you read. Where the tamron failed was on AF. That's why it was rated lower. Nothing to do with price. It'll be interesting to see how their VC version does.

I don't care how many Sigma supporters appear, the old HSM II copy I got, brand new, was soft wide open out of the box. It had back focus issues, albeit slightly, and had awful CA and fringing at 200mm. Now, we buy a 2.8 70-200 for many reasons. 2 of the main ones, are "2.8" and "200mm" - I got rid of it fast and bought a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon. Loved that glass. Much sharper at ever level than the sigma. I've since sold it on, as part of my DX to FX move, and now I'm looking to replace it. The Nikon 70-200 is the logical choice.

It's nice to see the Sigma OS version has improved on things, but, it's still sigma. And I've had 3 bad experiences with their lenses to date. That's 3 too many in my book. Never had any issue with any tamron, sony, minolta or Nikon lens.

People can say the Sigma is sharp 'till the cows come home. But my sigma lenses were not. One of them, ok - an older 70-300 "macro" - just fell apart after a few months. The motor just bust in it, without any fall or smack or pressure. The gears just ... ground out. I used it as a manual lens for months before finally selling it for practically nothing, as a manual only lens. Another sigma I had also back focused and the AF was so slow I'd miss a snail on the move.

Just saying ...
Click to expand...

Sounds as if your Sigma needed calibrating to your body. As I say, mine is pin sharp at f/2.8 at 200mm. If it wasn't I wouldn't be happy.

OEM lenses will always have the advantage of working 110% as they should do straight out of the box, while sometimes with a 3rd party lens (and this issue isn't exclusively with Sigma) might need a little tweaking to the individual body. 95% of the time they don't.

Oh, and as your post sounds a little snobbish (I'm sure it wasn't meant to!) I will also point out that there's nothing wrong with using 3rd party glass :)

Quite often it's the best option.
 
Last edited:
Cheers guys for all the feedback :)

guess i will go with the sigma and hope i get a sharp copy!

and just to check the newest sigma 70-200mm is the best to get?

Sigma EX DG OS HSM 70-200mm 2.8?

there is also one the is a macro shall i ignore this?

it will be used to shoot cricket/football and cars
 
Its the only one you can get new, and yes its the best version. There is only one OS.
 
Cagey75 said:
You don't hear many complain about the Nikon. In any way.

All I know is I had the HSM II Sigma and it was horrible wide open. Maybe I'm fussier than most? I want 2.8 to be sharp. I had a 20yr old 80-200 Nikon and that managed it.
Click to expand...

Cagey, sorry you've had such poor experiences with some of your Sigmas. I guess I got your dose of good luck with all mine! Apart from the Fisheye and the 70-200, mine were all new at purchase and even the 70-200 came from a relatively local bricks'n'mortar shop so if there had been any problems with any of them, I could return them to the shop and get the problem sorted, either with a replacement or a refund.

I could (if I could justify the expense) upgrade my trinity (12-24, 24-70 and 70-300) to the Nikon versions but since I'm perfectly happy with the Sigmas, I'll stick with them!

Keep enjoying this wonderful (if rather expensive!) hobby.

ETA. BTW, weren't there some reports of softness or vignetting on FF with the Mk I Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8?

Nod.
 
Last edited:
I currently own a sigma 70-200 and 85. 1.4. Both are pin sharp wide open.
I've owned two 150 macros, both were pin sharp wide open.
I've owned a 105mm macro, it was pin sharp wide open.
I owned a 12-24, it wasn't super sharp wide open, but good stopped down.
I owned a 30mm f/1.4, was pin sharp wide open
I owned a 50mm f/1.4 was pin sharp wide open
I owned a 24-70 was sharp from f/4 onwards
I owned a 18-55 f/2.8 was sharp wide open at all focal lengths.

See a theme here?
 
Pentax
Sigma 12-24mm
30mm
50-150mm mkll
70-200mm os
50-500mm os

Canon
12-24mm
180mm macro
50-500mm os

No problems here that a little inbody af adjustment hasn't sorted out.

Must admit though that I would be a bit more wary if I couldn't do the adjustments myself.
 
Nod said:
ETA. BTW, weren't there some reports of softness or vignetting on FF with the Mk I Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8?

Nod.
Click to expand...

Yep, Vignetting is quite prominent at 2.8. I don't always spot vignettes on images straight away but photographing a wedding recently in a white walled room was a bit of an eye opener to say the least! I should add though that the vignetting is so easily corrected these days that it's probably the most minor of concerns. It can even be corrected in camera if shooting jpeg.

My telephoto history goes Tamron, 70-300, Nikon 70-300 VR, Sigma 70-210 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II, Nikon 70-200 VR1 and then back to a 70-300 VR.

The Sigma 70-200 2.8 was superb, in hindsight I should have kept it. I sold it get a Nikon VR1. The biggest difference between those two was the VR system opened up new options. In terms of optical quality, they were different but it would be hard to say which one was better. If pushed I thought the Nikon looked marginally sharper and I preferred the colour rendition but really this is splitting hairs. If the Sigma OS version is significantly better than the HSM II version, then it must be quite a lens!

FWIW I've no longer got a 70-200 as I find them too big and too heavy to use in any sort of casual manner. I also didn't like having so much money tied up in a lens I had to hunt for reasons to use. Wish I still had one though particularly for portraiture.
 
i'll always wade in and defend 3rd party glass because ive had 8 good sigmas..

50mm 1.4 - good wide open, even better stopped down to 2.8
14mm 2.8 asph - makes your eyes bleed its that sharp
18-50mm 2.8 - excellent and sharp wide open
18-50mm 2.8 - same
24-70mm 2.8 HSM - sharp at both ends wide open
70-200mm 2.8 macro - sharp wide open
70-200mm 2.8 marco - same
120-300mm 2.8 non-DG - sharp wide open both ends
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top