Nikon vs. Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jhamerphoto, Aug 24, 2008.

  1. jhamerphoto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #1
    Hey guys, I'm heavily weighing the pros and cons of these lenses, and I can't decide which would be the best option for me. I've read great reviews for both, but I'm still having a hard time deciding. Obviously the Nikon has better glass, VR, and AF-S, but running $1800 for one lens as a student is pretty tough to do. Is it actually worth the extra almost $1000, or would the Sigma be the best bet?

    Thanks
     
  2. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #2
    If you buy the Sigma for $1000, you'll probably get $500 when you sell it.

    Better get a used lens of this category.
     
  3. PkennethV macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto
    #3
    I think if you're planning to go pro, get the Nikon because even if you get the Sigma now, you'll probably end up selling it and getting the Nikon one "later on." If it's just you hobby then it would be a tougher one to decide on...
     
  4. revenuee macrumors 68020

    revenuee

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    #4
    the Sigma doesn't really start to loose it's own until you start trying to BLOW up your pictures a lot beyond it's native resolution -- at least on my 6 mega pixel camera.

    With that said ... if you can afford it, go nikon -- but you are paying for that VR.

    I have several Sigma lenses -- the 105 macro and the 14 mm wide -- both 2.8 -- I borrowed the 70 - 200 and it was awesome --- I'll try to dig up a few photos -- they are on an old hard drive i haven't migrated yet ... so don't hold your breath ...

    if you have the time ... go down to a shop that has them both ... take your camera ... ask the nice sales rep to step outside of the store with you ... take a few shots around the location.

    go home ... upload your photos' and do a comparison.

    make sure you take photos of the same thing, with the same settings, and the same camera ... and then compare and see if it makes a difference to you.

    IF i were buying ... i would buy the Sigma ... the nikon isn't currently worth it to me.

    best
     
  5. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #5
    I would add Tamron's 70-200 f/2.8 as well as Tokina's and Sigma's 50-135/150 mm f/2.8 lenses to the list. The latter two are (i) cheaper, (ii) lighter and most importantly have a more suitable zoom range (50-135 mm corresponds to 75~200 mm on film, 70 mm corresponds to 105 mm on film, I find that too much for many portraits already).

    Also, I think you've forgotten another alternative that comes directly from Nikon: you can get a new 80-200 f/2.8 zoom that retails for about $900. Its construction (glass-wise) is identical to the Nikkor I have and it's a great, great lens. I'm always amazed how big the difference is to the other lenses (just phenomenologically, when I shoot somewhere, e. g. at a wedding, usually the shots I like best are made with that lens).
     
  6. revenuee macrumors 68020

    revenuee

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    A place where i am supreme emporer
    #6
    A yes ... I've had limited experience with this lens but have seen some great reviews and some pin sharp images
     
  7. jhamerphoto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #7
    I've considered the 50-150mm, but because I also shoot film, this lens won't be of much use for me - and as a student, spending $900 on a single lens and only being able to use it on one camera is kind of illogical.

    The 80-200mm crossed my mind, and I've seen plenty of people use it around my area, but I think if I'm going to go with a Nikon lens, I might as well get the 70-200mm for it's VR and especially HSM. The quiet and fast AF is what really gets me, and to get the most out of a fast telephoto zoom, I can see myself appreciating those two featres.

    I guess I'll just save on the side for the next year until I can afford the 70-200mm Nikon. It will hold it's resale value, and I won't have any regrets about not buying the best lens.

    The next problem I run into is pairing the lens. I won't want to pair it with the loud Sigma 24-70mm, and the Nikon is going to run me another $1900, as opposed to $700. Especially since I dream about the 14-24mm f2.8 hahaha.

    Oh god, being a starving student really seems to have no plus side. :(
     
  8. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #8
    Sure, depends on how much film you shoot.
    JFYI, I have a 80-200 Nikkor and IQ-wise, I'm a very happy camper. But it starts at (effectively) 120 mm -- which is already very narrow for what I like shooting the most: portraits.
    That's something you have to decide for yourself, whether it's worth paying extra for that. On the other hand, you could get the 80-200 now and upgrade later (= when you can afford it). The value of lenses doesn't really deteriorate like bodies do.
     
  9. jhamerphoto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #9
    Well, I'm in a photography program so certain projects can be film-only. Also, There's so much debate right now over APS-C and FF, and if it holds up, I'll likely upgrade to a FF body like the D700 (of that time frame) in the future. If this is the case, then starting at 50mm would be a little wide for what I normally shoot in terms of portraits on a FF, so I think 70 would be nicer.

    Well that's the tough part. I considered the buy now and upgrade thing, but if I can't find a buyer who is willing to pay around 85-90% of the original value, I'll have to settle with the max 50% value that my local camera shops offer, which would really be a kick in the pants. It's not like I have the money right this second anyway, so by the time I do, it's only another couple weeks of working before I can get the better lens anyway. Chances are I'll just end up putting the Nikkor 70-200mm on my line of credit once I have a good chunk of my tuition paid off. It is part of my development as a photographer anyway.
     
  10. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #10
    Rathen then buy the Sigma why not the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 It lacks VR but sells for about $950 and you can get good used examples for $650. I'd rather have the used Nikon then the new Sigma. Also when it comes time to move up to the Nikon 70-200 VR lens you can sell the used Nikon for a price close to what you paid. The Sigma would loose halt it's value. If you are on a budget used Nikon lenses are a great value far better than new thrid party lenses.
     
  11. jhamerphoto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #11
    Finding a used for that price would be amazing, but I highly doubt that's possible around Toronto, especially for CAD. If that were the case, I would go with it in an instant.
     
  12. jhamerphoto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    #12
    Just realized, since it's AF-S and has an f2.8 aperture, I can use it with a teleconverter in the future to extend my zoom range at a reasonable aperture and still use AF, which will save me tons in the long run. I guess it's the 70-200mm Nikkor for me :D
     

Share This Page