Sigma 70-200 2.8 or Nikon 70-300VR

K

KMPhoto

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,406
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
I was about to purchase a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG II HSM Macro until yesterday when I got my hands on a Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED for a few minutes.

Now I am faced with a dilemma - what are the pros and cons of each?

As I see it:

Sigma pros: Good quality, fast, will accept a TC

Sigma cons: Heavy, No OS, short (up to 200mm only)

Nikon pros: Good reputation, light, VR, 300mm

Nikon cons: Slow

Anyone able to add to the above please? I walk / hike a lot so the Nikon weight and length will be a plus; the length of the Sigma can be increased with a TC so that's not a huge issue.

Main interests are landscapes and sometimes birds in controlled settings (wetlands etc).

TIA.
 
Well i recconend the nikon but if your main intrests in photography are birds and landscape you should also get a wide angle lens and so you have your telephoto lens on when you are photographing birds at wetland and your wideangle lens when you see an interesting landsape. Please what you get and maybe post some pictures with it? Thanks.
 
^ up there i meant please tell me what you got and maybe
 
I have a 10-20, 17-50, 35 & 50 primes and now looking for something longer so it comes to a choice between these two.

Any experience with both would be helpful, thanks.
 
Not used the 70-200 Sigma but I have owned both the 70-300 & 70-200 VR2 Nikons, although both on FX so they will be 1.5x longer on your D90. I would say for hiking, go for the 70-300 VR. Considerably smaller and lighter than any 70-200 2.8 and the VR would be a distinct advantage if you're not lugging a tripod as well. You're most likely to be stopping down for most landscape shots anyway. And for birding, you'll find yourself at 200mm all the time on the 70-200, so I would really recommend a long prime that's good with TCs over medium tele zoom (e.g. 300 f4).
 
Thanks John.

I'm not enough in birding to pay the price (monetary and weight) of having a 300mm prime but would be happy enough with the TC.

It's a good point about stopping down with landscapes; I expect I'd be in the f8-f16 range most of the time.

I suppose my main concern was about optical quality of the respective lenses and from reading around, it seems that a good Sigma will match the Nikon, particularly with both stopped down.

As I say, I was happy with the 70-200 option, until I got to try out the 70-300 and started to think again.
 
IIRC Kenko make a couple of teleconverters that will work correctly with the Nikon 70-300 VR..... I'm sure someone on here will be along shortly to say exactly which one's......
 
I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 mkII and have thought about getting the Nikon 70-300VR to replace it so i can get closer. Apart from losing a few f-stops will i be doing the right thing.
I like photographing Wildlife and birds in flight mainly.
 
I have the the sigma 70-200 F2.8 ex dg macro hsm
It is a very sharp lens and does cover a pretty good focal range but it is heavy ! it is very fast to focus quite and produces stunning shots in the right hands but i wouldn't want to lug it around all day


R33SY
 
I have the canon fit sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ex II HSM macro and it's an absolutely fantastic lens.

Very, very sharp, more so than my canon primes and very fast to focus. I use mine for sport so it's ideal.

However, 200mm is far too short for birding, as is 300mm really, though combined with a tc might work well.
 
Last edited:
Going to go with the Sigma - had a play with it and it's great. Nikon was good too and has the advantages as above but the Sigma speed did it for me.
 
The photography "ace" in our local club says the Nikkor AFS focus motor is much faster than the Sigma Hypersonic system. I had a Nikkor 18-200 DX VR AFS and found it to focus very fast compared to the Sigma too.
 
Phil White said:
The photography "ace" in our local club says the Nikkor AFS focus motor is much faster than the Sigma Hypersonic system. I had a Nikkor 18-200 DX VR AFS and found it to focus very fast compared to the Sigma too.
Click to expand...

The nikkor 18-200 is nowhere near as fast as the sigma ex 70-200 in focusing speed. You are talking about a general do it all lens against a super fast telephoto designed for fast sports and low light photography. No comparison.
 
Different beasts really, get both? Or save up for the Nikon VR 70-200 and a 1.4xTC and don't worry about it.

Do you need 4X the light? Get the sigma if you find yourself bumping ISO to sketchy levels and/or having to drop the shutter speed too slow for your needs. (beyond isolating camera shake obviously)

Do you need the reach?... Do you *really* need the reach? okay, get the 70-300
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top