Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:50 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:00 am 
I'm looking into getting either the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8. I've seen reviews of both by themself but never one comparing the two against each other. I was wondering if some one could do a review or knows of a review that would be helpful as I need to know if spending the extra 1000 dollars is the way too go or if I could get the same results with the less expensive sigma. thankyou in advance for any help you can offer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 7:09 pm
Posts: 1091
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
I cant give you a review, sorry. But the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 got VR and the sigma don't.

_________________

Victor
Website


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:44 am 
This belongs in the 'Nikon' forum rather than the 'User Reviews' section for a start. Maybe we could get this moved Mods?
Anyway, the Nikon is certainly a much better lens, also Sigma's Quality control is often regarded as poor, but is improving, and has improved recently. The Nikon also features Image Stabilisation (VR), which can aid you further in low light situations. You will find reviews of both Here


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:53 pm
Posts: 466
Location: Sugar Land, Texas
DavidCurr wrote:
I'm looking into getting either the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8. I've seen reviews of both by themself but never one comparing the two against each other. I was wondering if some one could do a review or knows of a review that would be helpful as I need to know if spending the extra 1000 dollars is the way too go or if I could get the same results with the less expensive sigma. thankyou in advance for any help you can offer.


The Nikon 70-200mm has excellent IQ. The Sigma does too, but doesn't match the level the Nikon reaches (nor the price) :D.
Since you are comparing the two 70-200mm and you DO have a cropped body, you should also compare against the Sigma 50-150mm, Tamron 70-200mm,Tokina 50-135mm, both offering better contrast and overall sharpness than the Sigma 70-200mm. the 50-1XX are probably more useful to you if you like to shoot candids, weddings, events, but the 70-200mm will be more useful for sports and wild life. Also keep in mind that the Sigma/Tokina 50-XXX are about 1/2 the weight of either 3 of those 70-200mm zooms (about 3 lbs or 1300g each).

_________________
Samsung GX-10, , SA 18-55mm
Canon 5D Mark II, 40D, EF 17-40mm f/4 L, EF 24-105mm L IS, EF 50mm f/1.4

www.flickr.com/glxlr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
I have the Sigma 70-200 and I love it. Sure, it's not super super sharp, but who cares. Nobody looks at all your pictures at 100 %
Tamron may have marginally better optics, but the focus motor is slower and noisier.
Sure, VR is a nice thing to have, but a monopod helps a lot too.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:37 pm 
+1 for the nikon :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:49 pm 
vote for the Nikon!
it's one of the best 70-200


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Razvan wrote:
vote for the Nikon!
it's one of the best 70-200


Sure it's the best, but it's also 3 times as expensive.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:38 pm 
Yes...you pay a lot for the VR too.

Well David,for the cheap option: if you need fast focusing speed for action shots,go for the Sigma,if you want a bit more sharpness,go for the slower Tamron. I've also read that the Tamron has focus-miss problems at 200mm. You should test them both if you can. It's the best way to see what to expect from each lens.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:44 pm 
I'll go for Nikon 70 200 VR For that


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:11 am 
If you can afford the Nikkor, go ahead. It's the better of the two (I don't think anyone debates that). Otherwise, the Sigma is a great budget option. I use one and enjoy it a lot.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 6:00 am 
Hi, i think each lens has its own characteristics. Yes, Nikon 70-200mm is sharper edge to edge, but it does not means that Sigma is not sharp. Sigma strategy is to focus on the center sharpness. I find it appealing especially for portraits where you want to blur the background. But if you're looking for ultimate sharpness edge to edge, you need Nikons.

I use Sigma 70-200mm extensively in full frame FX D700 cameras, I think it performs very well with the camera. The HSM works very well to track down the objects. Check out my dance gallery shot by Sigma 70-200mm.
http://www.enchetjin.com/gallery/8108653_j6mez#P-1-20a

Lack of VR in this case does not matter, since I shot in high shutter speed to eliminate motion blur.

For crop sensor camera, the focal length is longer due to 1.5 crop factor. It will be a bit challenging to combat shake in 135-200mm, but again, it will depends on what r u shooting. If you are shooting still image, VR maybe more important. You might also check out 50-135mm like other suggest, but make sure you understand that the 50-135mm is not designed for full frame (FX) camera.

I bought Sigma because of its value. I think that $1000 for VR and extra punch of sharpness is too much and unnecessary for my shooting style.

The Sigma's sharpness is good enough for me, more sharper than that will make the image look unnatural.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:22 pm 
You should check out DPreview

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... p8_vr_n15/

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sig ... 0_2p8_n15/

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tam ... 0_2p8_c16/

All three are reviewed on both DX and FX


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:09 pm 
you get what you pay for. The Nikon focuses more accurately and faster. Not being Sigma, the quality control is obviously better too, which means you're less likely to end up with a dud.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
you get what you pay for. The Nikon focuses more accurately and faster. Not being Sigma, the quality control is obviously better too, which means you're less likely to end up with a dud.


I haven't had any focus error that I blame the lens for, just myself.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group