Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Macro or the Nikon Version?
MrsCastle
Registered Users Posts: 181 Major grins
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
Thanks:D
"Art is Man's nature. Nature is God's art" ~ James Bailey
[/url]http://www.imagesbyaileen.com
www.castleriversphotography.blogspot.com
[/url]http://www.imagesbyaileen.com
www.castleriversphotography.blogspot.com
0
Comments
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.
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.
- my photography: www.dangin.com
- my blog: www.dangin.com/blog
- follow me on twitter: @danginphoto
[/url]http://www.imagesbyaileen.com
www.castleriversphotography.blogspot.com