Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Macro or the Nikon Version?

MrsCastleMrsCastle Registered Users Posts: 181 Major grins
edited October 23, 2008 in Accessories
I would love to hear which lens I should buy. I'm leaning towards the sigma because of the price. Would I be getting same quality or should I go for the Nikon with VR? Opinions are appreciated!!!

Thanks:D
"Art is Man's nature. Nature is God's art" ~ James Bailey
[/url]http://www.imagesbyaileen.com
www.castleriversphotography.blogspot.com

Comments

  • Shane422Shane422 Registered Users Posts: 460 Major grins
    edited October 21, 2008
    You should also look at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Its not quite as fast but its sharp and priced at $699. That said, the Nikon lens, either the 80-200, or the 70-200VR are both extremely nice and worth the extra money.
  • Tee WhyTee Why Registered Users Posts: 2,390 Major grins
    edited October 22, 2008
    I've heard from PopPhoto that the 200mm end of the new Sigma "macro" versions are a bit softer than the older ones. Perhaps there is a bit of sacrifice in IQ for the greater magnification.

    I've heard that the 80-200 is optically very nice and if you can swing that, I'd consider the Nikon lens. Another option is the Tamron 70-200 but I recall a test at dpreview of that lens in Canon mount with AF consistency issues. I'm not sure if that applies to the Nikon mount as I assume that they use the screw AF from the body. So if there are no issues with AF on the Nikon mount, the Tamron may be a good buy.

    Good luck.
  • dangindangin Registered Users Posts: 458 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2008
    i don't know if i'd ever get a sigma lens. i know photographers that have had them and had problems with them. there are some shooters, like art scott, that swear by them. then again, i've never met art... mwink.gif

    as it's been mentioned, i too would suggest the new tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 if you're looking for an alternative to the nikon. i happen to have both the nikon and tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 and will offer my .02 for what it's worth:

    nikon
    faster AF
    top notch optics
    pretty darned sharp
    VR
    built like a tank
    quite possibly the best 70-200mm f/2.8 out there
    heavy around the neck
    pretty pricey @ $1650-1700

    tamron
    not quite as fast AF
    really good optics
    pretty darned sharp
    no VR
    lighter, more plastic-ie feeling
    not so heavy around the neck
    a lot less than the nikon

    neither are macro lenses; however the tamron has a noticeably shorter MFD. i shoot weddings indoor with the nikon. i shoot outdoor or travel-intensive events w/ the tamron.
    - Dan

    - my photography: www.dangin.com
    - my blog: www.dangin.com/blog
    - follow me on twitter: @danginphoto
  • MrsCastleMrsCastle Registered Users Posts: 181 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2008
    Thanks everyone all the above information will be very helpful in my decisioniloveyou.gif
    "Art is Man's nature. Nature is God's art" ~ James Bailey
    [/url]http://www.imagesbyaileen.com
    www.castleriversphotography.blogspot.com
Sign In or Register to comment.