Do I click buy on Sigma 70-200?

S

Slothmeister

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, Im really pulling my hair out hair and need some unbiassed advice. Little while ago i made a thread about getting a new lens for motorsport, i was suggested as a starting point to get a 70-200 f2.8 lens to start with.

So obviously the main choices are going to be the Nikon at £1500 or the Sigma at £950, now, theres a price difference of around £500 depending on where you shop, and that's just something that i cant afford at the moment.

So i guess my question is, is there a noticeable difference in picture quality between the two lenses to warrant holding off purchasing it until i can save up enough pennies to afford the Nikon, or is the Sigma a cracking lens and well worth the purchase.

Also, i need to buy a x2 TC aswell, am i best to get a sigma one or the nikon version?

Thanks, i've never spent more than £300 on a lens, which is why im a little nervous about making the wrong decision.
 
Sorry. No help on the lenses. But why don't you hire one of each and try them before you sink your money into them? That kind of cash would make me nervous too :lol:
 
Not sure about the picture quality between the two makes, but IQ suffers as soon as you use a 2X converter.
 
I've been using a sigma 70-200 on my canon bodies for years & I'm very happy with it BUT it never worked well with a 2x TC
 
Thanks grum but those are the Macro versions rather than the standard, sorry i didn't make that clear.

Neil, yeah its the OS one, i would like to cover all bases and make sure its got everything.

So people that have used the TC, how badly does it effect it?
 
Hi Adam, I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and it's a super lens. I also have a Siggy 150-500m and if I take photo's with both lenses I - and possibly others - woud be able to tell the difference between the two.

If you have the money then I would go for the Nikon without a doubt.


StephenP said:
Not sure about the picture quality between the two makes, but IQ suffers as soon as you use a 2X converter.
Click to expand...

I have seen photo's taken with a 2 x TC on a nikon lens and there was no discernable IQ loss, but what actually happens is that you lose 2 stops so a f2.8 becomes a f5.6, so if you have difficult lighting you will struggle.
 
The nikon suffers with the tc2' but with the new tc3 version it's excellent.

The sigma with the 2* is not as good as the nikon with the tc2.
 
Why not buy a secondhand Nikon 70-200 VRI? I have seen a few of them around on ebay, and on here for around £1000.00? Got to be the better buy than the Siggy, surely?!?!?
 
I've got the Siggy 70-200 MkII and I'm more than happy with it.. it's certainly not a macro lens, just has a macro functionality.. all that means in reality is that you can close focus from about a foot away.

At £609 from Jessops with Sigma's 3yr Warranty it was almost a third of the price of the Nikon and a longer Warranty.
 
Another user if the mkII non OS and I can recommend this lens, it's lovely!

Massive punch per pound!

I think digital rev had the OS version for about £850 but I don't think you'll get the 3 year extended warranty as they are based in HK.
 
Last edited:
Surely there must be some other difference between the two sigma's to warrant the 300 price difference?

What are the improvements of the Nikon 70-200 VRII over the VR I?

Sorry for all the questions
 
Allegedly - and this is from reviews I've read - the optics on the OS model are better - plus you have the OS itself, which is probably enough to justify the £300.
 
Sigma:
Non OS - £600ish
OS - £900ish

The non-OS is amazing value for money.. if you're looking at spending the best part of a grand, I'd save up & get the Nikon.
 
For motorsport 200mm might be short. And if you are shooting in daylight, is there a need for a 2.8? Have you considered the Nikon 70-300mm (its VR - but that's no use for moving targets)?
 
kartracer said:
For motorsport 200mm might be short. And if you are shooting in daylight, is there a need for a 2.8? Have you considered the Nikon 70-300mm (its VR - but that's no use for moving targets)?
Click to expand...

He's on a D70 though, so a cropped sensor.. making it effectively a 300mm.
 
kartracer said:
For motorsport 200mm might be short. And if you are shooting in daylight, is there a need for a 2.8? Have you considered the Nikon 70-300mm (its VR - but that's no use for moving targets)?
Click to expand...

F2.8 with a 2x convertor would equate to 400mm at F5.6 though. still very useable plus will give him a lot more reach, as well as the crop factor of his camera, as well! Surely got to be the best of both worlds?
 
I asked for advice on a similar subject for shooting point to point photos, have you considered a used sigma 120-300 F2.8? IF you can live without OS! No need for a TC then either!

The ONLY other lens I might change to is a 70-200VR because of the other sports I shoot where the 70-120 range is useful!

My question was here:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=306284
 
Last edited:
Slothmeister said:
Hi guys, Im really pulling my hair out hair and need some unbiassed advice. Little while ago i made a thread about getting a new lens for motorsport, i was suggested as a starting point to get a 70-200 f2.8 lens to start with.

So obviously the main choices are going to be the Nikon at £1500 or the Sigma at £950, now, theres a price difference of around £500 depending on where you shop, and that's just something that i cant afford at the moment.

So i guess my question is, is there a noticeable difference in picture quality between the two lenses to warrant holding off purchasing it until i can save up enough pennies to afford the Nikon, or is the Sigma a cracking lens and well worth the purchase.

Also, i need to buy a x2 TC aswell, am i best to get a sigma one or the nikon version?

Thanks, i've never spent more than £300 on a lens, which is why im a little nervous about making the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you already made your decision and just want affirmation. I don't think you'll necessarily get that here.

You pays your money, and you takes your chance.
 
I just had the same exact problem,i wanted a 200 2.8 for weddings etcetc however i wanted something bigger for motor sport! im now awaiting the sigma 70-200 and 2x converter!
The lens was 549 from amazon!
I had the money for a canon second hand 70-200 but i figured all these things about quality etcetcetc are over rated! sure each make is a little better! but really £500+ better? i doubt it very much!
as for the 2x converter im not sure itll do the job i need but by ordering online ive got 2weeks to send it back no questions asked!
sorry i cant review these for you but i havent got them yet! also i opted out of os due to the fact ill be shooting motorsport at high speed and ive coped in extreme dark situations with a much crapper lens and got good results mainly due to weight factor. so ive saved myself a fortune and got a bag,2x converter and various other bits and im still under the canon pricetag and the os price! ps get the sigma converter if your buying the sigma lens! its custom for the job.
 
Be very careful buying from Amazon to ensure it's a UK lens. Despite buying from Amazon (not a reseller) I was shipped an EU lens (German). The serial was confirmed as non-UK market when I tried to register it with Sigma UK. Had to return it and get a refund.
 
I've got and use extensively the Nikon VR1. On my D700 there is some vignetting. You won't get that on crop. IQ at f2.8 is fab, super sharp. Lightning quick to focus. Not tried it with an extender yet. I'll get the x2 Mk3 when I can afford it.
Pretty convinced I'll not lose much cash when/if I change to VR2
 
Well thanks for everyones input.

I guess my final question is, if i'm mainly shooting motorsport and so not really needing stabilisation would it be wise to at least consider the cheaper macro version? Spec wise it looks the same, i suppose i always assumed that with it being a macro lens that i could only shoot close up with it. (I still have lots to learn)

Thanks again for everyones advice.
 
If its motorsport go for the macro version,its cheaper and due to the high shutterspeeds youll be using that will cancel any movement from your hands anyway!
plus its lighter and ive found i can use some lighter lens without image stabilisation better then a heavy but with os lens!
I suggest buying online whatever you do! soon as you get it go and try it out! worse comes to worse send it back within 2 weeks in perfect condition and youll get your money back!
I know the 70-200 sigma is going to be perfect for me so thats no worry for myself however like i said i have reservations over the x2 converter so that might have to go back!
Buying is so stressful these days go with your instincts and a bit of advice( dont take it too seriously as some people go mental over numbers,tiny details etcetc) remember though your not printing at 20ft by 20ft and its not for a £70000 contract! thats the way i look at these things!
 
i have the 70-200 siggy macro and its very good.
i think the OS version also includes more high end glass elements.
works fine with the 1.4x but its pants with the 2x
 
If you dont need VR/OS, what about the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, older lens but still highly spoken of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top