Choices choices

[thecornishone]

I'm looking at getting a mid range telephoto and my heart and head is telling me the sigma 70-200 os with the f2.8 constant ap is a belter at the price. Great user reviews but it's not a Nikon. You can buy a 2nd hand 80-400mm d Nikon with vr for 550ish but it doesn't seem particularly fast. Does the fact that it's a nikon mean it's better than it should be or am I right in going for the sigma? Nikon snobs need not reply

 

[sep9001]

Have you had a look at the Tamron 70-200 vc version, there is a new one coming out soon so hopefully the price of the v2 may come down.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I pondered the Tamron, but there are a few reports of quality issues, so I bought a used 70-200 F4 as I don't desperately need F2.8. Impressed with it so far, but it's not a lens I use a lot (which is why I couldn't justify the Nikon F2.8).

 

[OldCarlos]

You can buy a 2nd hand 80-400mm d Nikon with vr for 550ish

At that price it'll be the old MK1. (A decent lens btw, but not as good as the newest version)

 

[thecornishone]

I"ve only compared the tamron and sigma on a like for like and there isn't a lot for choose. General consensus is the sig is slightly better? And a bit cheaper. Just wondering really if the nikon is all that. The original question was getting at the benefit of f2.8 against the longer reach although slower lensed alternatives. Reach over quality if you like

 

[the black fox]

Bought a sigma 700-200 f 2.8 the other day ,belter of a lens and FAF focussing to ..you won't be sorry with it

 

[thecornishone]

Bought a sigma 700-200 f 2.8 the other day ,belter of a lens and FAF focussing to ..you won't be sorry with it

Thanks for the comment, ordered one from Mifsuds on Monday. Looking forward to easter if it gets here in time