Which of these combination (Nikon / Sigma) lenses would you go for?

Wail

Wail

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,671
Name
Wail
Edit My Images
No
After spending months regretting selling my 70-200 f2.8 VR, I am now planning to buy another one; I have also been considering getting the 200-400 f4 VR.

I was about to go ahead with this when all of a sudden I realised that I could get the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 along with a Sigma 1.4 tele-converter. These two Sigma lenses and TC would be less than half the price of the two Nikkon lenses.

Pros. For Nikkon option

- Both lenses have VR, though I am not too sure why would I want, or need, VR on the 200-400!
- I can learn to hand-hold the 70-200VR, giving me better reach, and focal range
- Nikkon built quality
- Better resale value

Pros. For the Sigma option
- Much cheaper than the two Nikkons
- 50-150 is a lot lighter than the 70-200VR, may be a lot easier for me to use, and hand-hold
- 120-300 will give better reach, and range than the 70-200
- 120-300 with 1.4tc will be, or will it :shrug:, just as good as the Nikkon 200-400VR. Both will be f4, but the Sigma will have a much better range!


Now, lack of VR (OS for the Sigma) on the Sigma is scaring me off, but apart from that I don’t really know what other issues are with the Sigma option! I am planning to rent the Sigma, along with the TC, to give it a go and see how I like it.

Of course, any of these options would mean I will need to buy a bigger tripod and ball-haed, as my current set-up will not support the weight, this would be another £400 on top of the whole purchase price.

I am now more inclined to go with the Sigma; not only because of the range but also the huge price difference; but I was “ok” to fork-out for the Nikkon until this thought came to mind!

Any input and feedback would be highliy appreaciated.
 
Personally I would go for Nikon over Sigma anyday, I do have a few Sigma lenses and use them frequently but when your talking about the 70-200 f/2.8 VR against a Sigma, for me there is no comparison.

The Nikon's colours are fabulous, it's sharp as jif lemon in the eye and it's as light as a feather.

I always find Sigma AF being much more laboured than Nikon AF too.

Hire a few for Lensesforhire! Stew will sort you out nice and then you can base your purchase on first hand tests :thumbs:
 
Tomas,

Thank you for the feedback.

I do plan to rent the Sigma, but Stew doesn't do the 200-400VR and says so in his sight (or was it on his thread) that he would not consider this lens!

When you say the Nikon is as light as feather, which Nikon were you talking about? To me, both Nikons are very heavy. I sold my 70-200VR because I couldn't hand-hold it, and before you - or anyone - thinks of me as being a wos (sp), I have a badly broken right-hand that limits my grip big time.
 
Wail said:
Tomas,

Thank you for the feedback.

I do plan to rent the Sigma, but Stew doesn't do the 200-400VR and says so in his sight (or was it on his thread) that he would not consider this lens!
Click to expand...

Oh right, sorry there, I didn't know that. I havent used a 200-400VR myself so couldn't comment on the quality.

I have used a 300mm f/2.8 AFS and a 400mm f/2.8 VR, both were superb beyond my imagining.

Wail said:
When you say the Nikon is as light as feather, which Nikon were you talking about? To me, both Nikons are very heavy. I sold my 70-200VR because I couldn't hand-hold it, and before you - or anyone - thinks of me as being a wos (sp), I have a badly broken right-hand that limits my grip big time.
Click to expand...

Ah well having a broken donnie doesn't help (sorry to hear it mate), be careful with that, maybe whip a monopod out while the healing process is under way.
I was the 70-200 VR is what I was referring to, I have been using a 70-200 f/2.8L IS Canon version all year and compared to that it is considerabley lighter, I let out a girlie snigger when I picked one up for the first time as it felt like half the weight! :lol:
 
out of the choices i would choose the Nikon 70-200 and the Sigma 120-300 with TC

the Sigma 120-300 is fantastic, i have one and rate it very highly. and with the 1.4X Converter you will have 420mm F4 which will be slightly longer than the 200-400

not used the 200-400 or even seen one but going off the lenses i have seen/used you wont be disappointed in a Sigma 120-300, even throughtout the range without TC you have the 2.8 so it should be slightly faster
 
Tomas,

Thank you, again, for the input. About my hand issue, it is not going to get better! It was broken a number of times, and now I have plates in it (right hand) which limits my movement, grip and power.
 
whitey,

Thank you, but I am not too happy with the "big" overlap between the Nikon 70-200 and the Sigma 120-300 ... unless I am not thinking right!
 
Wail said:
Tomas,

Thank you, again, for the input. About my hand issue, it is not going to get better! It was broken a number of times, and now I have plates in it (right hand) which limits my movement, grip and power.
Click to expand...

Bummer mate, well make sure you get it on the mend before playing twister or anything similar! :thumbs:

All the best

T
 
I'm with Tomas, Nikon over Sigma any day of the week. I'd still love a 120-300, but Sigma's legendary (lack of) build quality keeps putting me off. :shrug:
 
Wail said:
whitey,

Thank you, but I am not too happy with the "big" overlap between the Nikon 70-200 and the Sigma 120-300 ... unless I am not thinking right!
Click to expand...

i dont find it a problem tbh, as sometimes you feel the need to have to have alittle wider view with some reach still and the 70-200 does perfectly wheres most of the time you feel it best to use the 120-300
 
whitey,

That's why I was thinking, if I went the Sigma way, that I would get the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 to compliment the 120-300!
 
that was an option i looked at also, but i got the 70-200 cheap from a guy on here so i couldnt really refuse

if only you lived alittle closer to me you could have tried both lenses to see what you though of them
 
Wail said:
I do plan to rent the Sigma, but Stew doesn't do the 200-400VR and says so in his sight (or was it on his thread) that he would not consider this lens!
Click to expand...
Ooh, my ears are burning....

We don't currently stock the Nikon 200-400VR. We probably will by next spring, but business is quietening down a bit at the moment and we need to watch the purse strings.

Most of the time, if we don't stock a lens, we'll buy it in of the customer commits to 2 weeks hire. But we simply can't afford to do that on a whim for lenses that cost thousands of pounds - and this Nikon is one of them. Sorry.
 
StewartR said:
Ooh, my ears are burning....

We don't currently stock the Nikon 200-400VR. We probably will by next spring, but business is quietening down a bit at the moment and we need to watch the purse strings.

Most of the time, if we don't stock a lens, we'll buy it in of the customer commits to 2 weeks hire. But we simply can't afford to do that on a whim for lenses that cost thousands of pounds - and this Nikon is one of them. Sorry.
Click to expand...

That's quite fair enough Stew :thumbs:
 
Stewart,

Thank you for that clarification. As a matter of fact, I read somewhere - not sure if it was on your site, or in one of your threads - that you would concider to buy the lens but that you would not concider anything with a price tag over £2,000.

I say that's very fair and prudent business; of course I would rahter rent them (the Sigma and Nikon) before I buy especially since this may be the most expensive camera set-up I buy. Still, I have had some hands-on with the Nikon 200-400VR and I've owened the 70-200VR. So that gets these covered. It's the Sigmas that I am reluctant about.

It's nothing to do with ego, but I was happy going with the Nikon set-up until I stumbled on the idea of the Sigma; and now puddleduck is almost convincing me to overlook the 70-200VR adding more to my confusion.
 
After spending months regretting selling my 70-200 f2.8 VR, I am now planning to buy another one; I have also been considering getting the 200-400 f4 VR.


i would allways buy nikon first and you say you regret selling the 70-200

why not buy that first then choose your secound lens later when maybe you are more sure what you need...
 
I think Richard Peters has a 200-400, may be worth pm`ing him with any questions?
 
Wail

I have the 50-150 ƒ2.8 its a nice lens but the 70-200vr puts it to shame mate.. I would have the Nikon, I have the sigma as a stop gap till I have the pennies for the Nikon.

Just my opinion

Nigel
 
Wail said:
now puddleduck is almost convincing me to overlook the 70-200VR adding more to my confusion.
Click to expand...

Well only because you seem to want a 300mm.

I always say if you are thinking of buying a lens + TC, just get the longer lens you really need.

The 70-200 VR is great, but its best between 70-200mm. Once you put a TC you lose a lot of quality.

So if you really want 300mm then I'd seriously consider a Sigma 120-300.

However I have another option - get a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-s which is superb + a 1.4x TC. That'll give you stellar 420mm performance, and if you re-buy a 70-200 VR again the TC will work on that two.

Best of both worlds maybe?
 
I have both the Nikon 70-200mm vr and the 200-400mm vr. I use the 200-400mm handheld for shooting aircraft and the vr does come in handy.(tis bl**dy heavy though)
I would say both lenses are exactly what I expected from Nikon with regards to quality and both work well with the 1.7 converter.
Not a lot more I can add really. The only Sigma that I REALLY liked was the 300mm 2.8.
Superb lens.


Kev.
 
ditchdigger said:
.....

why not buy that first then choose your secound lens later when maybe you are more sure what you need...
Click to expand...


I regret selling my 70-200VR because it was fast, sharp and gave a very good range. I don't know anything about the Sigmas in question and that is why I am asking about them here.

It seems that the 50-150 isn't up there, in coparison, and this may make me overlook this one.
 
Shutterman said:
Wail

I have the 50-150 ƒ2.8 its a nice lens but the 70-200vr puts it to shame mate.. I would have the Nikon, I have the sigma as a stop gap till I have the pennies for the Nikon.

Just my opinion

Nigel
Click to expand...


Thanks Nigel, I was hoping to hear otherwise especially since this one is more compact and lighter!
 
puddleduck said:
Well only because you seem to want a 300mm.

I always say if you are thinking of buying a lens + TC, just get the longer lens you really need.

The 70-200 VR is great, but its best between 70-200mm. Once you put a TC you lose a lot of quality.

So if you really want 300mm then I'd seriously consider a Sigma 120-300.

However I have another option - get a Nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-s which is superb + a 1.4x TC. That'll give you stellar 420mm performance, and if you re-buy a 70-200 VR again the TC will work on that two.

Best of both worlds maybe?
Click to expand...


It's not 300mm that I am specifically after! I would love to go all the way up to 400mm at f2.8, but I can't justify that much of an expens, as that would meen I'd have to buy three lenses at f2.8!

May be another option of lenses would be the Nikon 70-200VR and the Sigma 120-300 with a 1.4TC; but I am not too keen on this setup as it means that Nikon is only giving me 70-120 before I have an overlap. That's a lot of £££ of a 50mm range at f2.8!
 
Wail said:
Thanks Nigel, I was hoping to hear otherwise especially since this one is more compact and lighter!
Click to expand...

Dont get me wrong it is a good lens with internal focusing and is a nice compact lens, but it does not match the Nikon by any means.

Nigel
 
Nigel,

At less than half the price of the Nikon, I wouldn't expect it to be comparable to be honest. I am glad to clarified this though, since from your previous post I thought you were telling me this lens isn't good, period!

Seeing that it is 770g in weight, it is not that much heavier than my current 70-300VR (at 745g).
 
I've thought about the Nikon 200-400 a fair bit recently... it is an attractive proposition apart from two things:

1) Size - its what, 1.5kg heavier than their 300 2.8 - and thats damned heavy enough.

2) In all practicality, does a long zoom like that offer you more than a prime? I mean will you ever really, honestly zoom around that much? I suspect you'll end up with it all the way at either end most of the time - or near as dammit.

A little foot based re-composition will save your back and your pocket...

I've no real idea what sort of photography you do, but obviously its fairly long range like the motorsport I do.

My kit bag would contain the Nikon 70-200VR, the Nikon 300 2.8 couple with 1.4 and 1.7 TC's. That would give me all the flexibility I need, the rest would be found using my (somewhat muddy) boots.

I've been around enough friends and aquaintances outside of this forum and seen their kit come and go to know that that combo above is the "reasonable" winning combo and all the Sigma kit is definitely a lesser beast. The curious length zooms (Nikon and Canon) are all second fiddle too....

You know what the 70-200VR is like and the 300 2.8 you can hire from our friends (they do have that). If you can cope with the weight, the results are just sublime....
 
Just my few pennies......
I had the sigma 120-300 for a short while but I was having trouble with the focus locking sporadically at an airshow whilst tracking. I had to re-focus on something innocuous before trying again. Mind you I was using it with the 2x converter at the time.
 
desantnik said:
I've thought about the Nikon 200-400 a fair bit recently... it is an attractive proposition apart from two things:

2) In all practicality, does a long zoom like that offer you more than a prime? I mean will you ever really, honestly zoom around that much?
Click to expand...
You don't have to zoom for motorsport, you can move positions, and those kindly sportsmen will drive past you again and agian. The 200-400 is very useful for wildlife shots though, where the moments come and go quickly, and the subjects aren't always so keen on you moving towards them (which could also require swimming).[/QUOTE]The main problem for you with the 200-400 is your broken hand, it really has to be a try before you buy. Popular lens though (not tried it, but seen many great images), so worth finding one.
 
I've got the 70-200 and 200-400. Both great lenses. If ultimate reach is your goal then getting the lens that gets you furthest without a TC is the way I'd do it. I've never had anything but great experiences with the Nikons, the 200-400 being an exceptionally highly rated lens.

Actually, I did a small review of the 200-400 on my blog which may (or may not) be of some use - it includes a side by side picture of it with the 70-200 which might help you judge size seeing as your familiar with that sized lens.
 
Well, this is getting hardder by the day.

Currently I have no need for the 200-400, or anything in that range. However, in a few months I will be moving back home (Saudi Arabia) and I am planning to shoot a lot of motor sport in the desert. This is where this lens, or anything else with such range come in. I can't move around, since by doing that I will creat a mess of sand all around me, which isn't very good for the gear; and I can't get too close to any of the subjects (4x4, dune buggies etc.) as they do create their own sandstorms. So, my best position would be somewhere a bit far, but not too far. I would need to settle in my place, wait for the sand and dust to settle and then set-up my gear. So, for this sort of shooting, it would be either the Sigma or this Nikon.

The 70-200VR would be more for urban shots.

Prime lenses, like the 300/2.8 wouldn't be ideal since I need the ability to zoom around; and I can't fiddle with TCs with all that sand around.
 
Wail said:
Nigel,

At less than half the price of the Nikon, I wouldn't expect it to be comparable to be honest. I am glad to clarified this though, since from your previous post I thought you were telling me this lens isn't good, period!

Seeing that it is 770g in weight, it is not that much heavier than my current 70-300VR (at 745g).
Click to expand...

I did a whole day with it in Brighton I will find the post and link it to here for you.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88252

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=88309


Hope that helps
 
Wail, as you know from your other thread, I bought the 120-300 after trying one out from Stewart at lensesforhire and being stunned by how good it was. I also added the 1.4 TC, great combo. That left me with a problem though, what to fill the gap between the 18-70 nikon kit lens and the 120.... yeah, you guessed it, I opted for the sigma 50-150 f2.8. Every pic of mine you see from last 6 months has been with one of the above 3 lenses [apart from afew with the 10-20, whihc is playing up and needs a service], so that will give you an idea of what you will get for your money. #

Having said that, if I could have afforded nikon, I might have gone for it, in fact, probably would have gone for it, but I don't think the Nikons are x times as good, where x = the price increase. The price difference also meant i was able to get a 150mm sigma macro s/h and persuade he with the wallet that an SB600 was a worthwhile investment too :naughty:


Basically, its as always, you get what you pay for, if you can really justify Nikon, go for it, if not, I doubt you will be disappointed with the Sigma options.
 
Richard,

Thanks for the input. I've just been over to your blog and read what you've had to say about the 200-400VR. In all honesty, there is no way I can handhold this lens, and I wouldn't even begin to think about that. I would only use it on a tripod.

That aside, the only think about this lens that I don't like is the price tag. As I don't make money from photography, not yet at least, spending this amount of money is a huge "investment" for me.

It seems I would be inclined to go with a whole different combination, which was suggested here earlier. I will most likely go with another 70-200VR and the Sigma 120-300/2.8 for which I would get the 1.4TC to go with.
 
Shutterman,

That's wonderful, thank you so much for the links. I am about to go and check them out.
 
Shutterman,

Great set of pictures there; again, thank you for posting the links here. It does seem like a fantastic lens, and one of the things I love about it is its weight and size, which make it ideal for me.
 
Wail said:
Shutterman,

Great set of pictures there; again, thank you for posting the links here. It does seem like a fantastic lens, and one of the things I love about it is its weight and size, which make it ideal for me.
Click to expand...

I think you have just answered your own question there, and the other bonus is you will not have to sell a lung to get the 70-200.

Nigel
 
Yvonne,

Money is always an issue, and the only way I am justifying this to myself is because I am going back home. I am both happy, very happy about this, and sad! So, to give myself something to play with, once I am there, I figured this would be the perfect toy.

Still, the price difference between the Nikon couple vs. the Sigma couple is huge ... we're talking in the range of £4,800 for the Nikon couple vs. £2,300 for the Sigma. That's a huge, mega huge price difference, enough to let me get the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and a D3 too.

As for your comment of "you get what you pay for", as much as I do agree with you and everyone else who argues that good glass is always better. I have some of my best, and I mean mind-blowing, F1 shots taken with the cheap Nikon 70-300G lens (I paid just about £90 for that, new). It's all down to what you can use, not just what you can buy! That is why I am looking for something that I can handhold, would mean I get more, and better use out of it.

So, my plan is to rent out the Sigmas and give them a try. The only thing is that I can't get the time to test them properly until late Jan. '09. Once I've tested them out I will make my final decision.

In the meanwhile, there is a lot of reading for me to do on this .. and a lot of learning, too.

God forbid, should I just go and buy the Nikons and then not manage to get good use out of them, mainly it's my hand issue that's giving me this handicap. That would mean I have to sell them and get the Sigmas. That's not what I want to do, at all.
 
understood. One thing to remember btw, your 1.4 tc, it will fit the sigma 50-150 too, give more reach on that when using as a walk about lens, still totally hand holdable. Just thought I would mention it in case anyone else hasn't, not read the whole thread in detail, trying to do a tesco online shop at same time without the whole thing timing out :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top