Sigma Or Nikkor 70-200?

[pdechavez]

I just don't know which to get. The nikkor is $1000 more here in Canada but is it really worth it? The sigma has macro to get that extra fine tuning... thoughts please?

[compuwar]

I just don't know which to get. The nikkor is $1000 more here in Canada but is it really worth it? The sigma has macro to get that extra fine tuning... thoughts please?

Unfortunately, only you can decide what's "worth" it. The Nikkor is excellent, but why not rent each and make up your own mind as to which fits your photography/budget best? There are online places that rent out the Sigmas, so it shouldn't be that difficult and then you'll know for sure which you like better as you can shoot them side-by-side on subjects you'd normally shoot.

[wheelhot]

Yeah, there are reason why Nikkor is $1k more expensive then the Sigma one, if both is equally the same then why do people still prefer paying an extra $1k for the label? Think about that, and of course they will be differences, the important thing is, is those differences matter to you?

[rogersmj]

As always whenever someone brings up this question, I'd suggest you at least consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D. New, they're around the same price as the Sigma (maybe a little more), and good used copies can be had for less. The only thing they don't have is a built-in focus motor and VR.

[ChrisA]

I just don't know which to get. The nikkor is $1000 more here in Canada but is it really worth it? The sigma has macro to get that extra fine tuning... thoughts please?

It's mostly just a budget issue. The only reason to buy the Sigma is because you can't afford the Nikon lens. Buy it if that is the case.

But also concider a used Nikon lens or the less expensive Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 which is about $650 on the used market.

The 80-200 and 70-200 family is one of Nikon best lenses.

[Eric Piercey]

I love my 80-200 2.8, but I've also always wanted a 70-200 VR. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have spent the extra dough and bought the 70-200 in the first place. The 80-200 is an awesome piece of machinery though.

[Maxxamillian]

I love my 80-200 2.8, but I've also always wanted a 70-200 VR. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have spent the extra dough and bought the 70-200 in the first place. The 80-200 is an awesome piece of machinery though.

Nikkor, hands down. Mine is mounted on a D3 which in turn provides a system that is QUICK to AF....the lens plays a huge role in this...

My only experience with macro lenses has been with the lovely 105 VR. I use this lens for portraiture and macro work (bokeh on this is jaw-dropping). However, the AF on the lens is nowhere near as snappy as the 70-200MM. I mention this because I wonder if the macro capabilities on the Sigma lens would slow it down....

Good luck!

[anubis]

Why don't you try reading some of the lens review sites e.g. www.photozone.de

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

As always whenever someone brings up this question, I'd suggest you at least consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D. New, they're around the same price as the Sigma (maybe a little more), and good used copies can be had for less. The only thing they don't have is a built-in focus motor and VR.

+1

I was debating the same thing, I got the 80-200mm and never looked back, I also got it for under 1k at the time off amazon.

[JosephBergdoll]

Mfg. lenses will always be better quality than third party. The sigma is noticeably softer wide-open than that of both of its mfg. counterparts (Canon, Noink).