Would you make this trade? Nikon 70-300mm 4.5 VR for Sigma 70-200 2.8

Nikonic1

I'm looking at a trade between my Nikon 70-300mm 4.5 VR lens for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. Both lenses are in pristine condition. All things being equal condition wise, is this a trade worth making or should I just hold onto the 70-300 and continue to save for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR that I'm dreaming of?

Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Qarik

Nikonic1 wrote:

I'm looking at a trade between my Nikon 70-300mm 4.5 VR lens for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 lens. Both lenses are in pristine condition. All things being equal condition wise, is this a trade worth making or should I just hold onto the 70-300 and continue to save for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR that I'm dreaming of?

Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

save for the nikkor 70-200mm no question

jbakerphoto

I say go for the trade and later on you can save for the nikon vr. There is no doubt that the nikon 70-200 vr is a better lense but the sigma is good lense and would be a nice upgrade from what you have now. I traded my canon 70-200 f4 L last year for the the sigma 2.8 and all things considered I am happy with it. I have been shooting horse shows in dark arenas and what not with it and has performed good.

time2smile

Do you need the 2.8 now. I have the 70-300vr and a tammy 70-200 2.8. I use them both and would not want to give either up. Thats a tough choice to make on the trade. If you think you would use the 2.8 more and need it now, then go for the trade. If you could wait, i would go for the Nikon 70-200vrII, it will probably be worth the wait.

good luck

jonh68

Just really depends if you need 2.8 now. The 70-200 and 1.4 TC will give you more flexibility as you will have a 280 reach at f4 and then the ability to have 2.8 without the TC.

The 70-300 is lighter and just a fun lens to shoot with and has optics that are close to pro grade. If I could only have one of the two, I would go with the 70-200, but the main reason is because I shoot sports as a freelancer and need a 2.8 zoom.

You can't go wrong whichever way you go. However, If you don't need 2.8 now, I would keep the 70-300 and save for a used 70-200 VR I.

Nikonic1

jonh68 wrote:

Just really depends if you need 2.8 now. The 70-200 and 1.4 TC will give you more flexibility as you will have a 280 reach at f4 and then the ability to have 2.8 without the TC.

The 70-300 is lighter and just a fun lens to shoot with and has optics that are close to pro grade. If I could only have one of the two, I would go with the 70-200, but the main reason is because I shoot sports as a freelancer and need a 2.8 zoom.

You can't go wrong whichever way you go. However, If you don't need 2.8 now, I would keep the 70-300 and save for a used 70-200 VR I.

Thank you. I don't especially "need" the 2.8 now, I've just been drooling over it for some time and would love to add it to my arsenal but not until the time is right. Its capabilities over my current 70-300 for shooting many, many different situations is what is really drawing me to it.

Thanks again for the comments.

Nikonic1

time2smile wrote:

If you could wait, i would go for the Nikon 70-200vrII, it will probably be worth the wait.

good luck

Sorry for the uneducated question, but is this lens going to be the first VRII lens? If not, do you have examples of other VRII offerings that I might be able to look at their reviews versus the original VR lenses?

Thanks!

time2smile

Nikonic1 wrote:

Sorry for the uneducated question, but is this lens going to be the first VRII lens? If not, do you have examples of other VRII offerings that I might be able to look at their reviews versus the original VR lenses?

Thanks!

Dont have a link, but I now goggle will work. Nikon just released the 70-200 VRII it is smaller and lighter than it VRI version.
Heres one link
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af

gowiththeflow

time2smile wrote:

Dont have a link, but I now goggle will work. Nikon just released the 70-200 VRII it is smaller and lighter than it VRI version.

Well, actually smaller and slightly heavier.

Definitely not Nikon's first VRII lens, the 16-85mm, 18-200mm (both versions), 70-300mm, 105mm and 85mm Micro, and 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm telephoto lenses all use VRII. The 'II' designation (on both the 70-200mm VRII and 18-200mm VRII) isn't referring to the lens having VRII, but that it's the second version of the lens with the same designation.

Nikonic1

"I see", said the blind man. I was apparently wrong in thinking this was the second iteration of their VR design. That differs from KenRockwell's review which says Nikon claims 1 stop more compensation from VRII.


EDIT: After rereading your post GWTF, it sounds like you're saying just the 70-200 and 18-200 VRII deisgnations don't have advancements in the VR? Again, this differs from the Ken Rockwell review I read.

Thanks!

gowiththeflow

Nikonic1 wrote:

"I see", said the blind man. I was apparently wrong in thinking this was the second iteration of their VR design. That differs from KenRockwell's review which says Nikon claims 1 stop more compensation from VRII.


EDIT: After rereading your post GWTF, it sounds like you're saying just the 70-200 and 18-200 VRII deisgnations don't have advancements in the VR? Again, this differs from the Ken Rockwell review I read.

Thanks!

No, you were right- the 70-200mm VRII has VRII, where the old 70-200mm VR has the original VR system. The 18-200mm had VRII in both versions- the II was added to denote the new version with the zoom lock, in that case. Nikon doesn't denote which version of VR a lens has in the designation, but they claim 4 stops instead of 3 stops improvement, and they specify if a lens has the VRII system on their site.

The 70-200mm VRII may be the first lens to be available with both VR and VRII though. But don't quote me on that.

Nikonic1

Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder if Santa is going to bring me some new glass this year? I doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to dream, right??

Nikonic1

Another question: For an amateur photographer building his kit, would everyone suggest saving the $500 and get the VR lens? I like the idea of the weight savings, no matter how small and I haven't heard a bad thing about this lens.

Is the extra $500 really worth spending for someone who never really intends on making money from photgraphy and just loves the hobby? This might not be able to be answered due to the lack of the reviews on the new lens but $500 is a long way to adding another much desired lens to the kit if it wasn't spent here.

gowiththeflow

Nikonic1 wrote:

Another question: For an amateur photographer building his kit, would everyone suggest saving the $500 and get the VR lens? I like the idea of the weight savings, no matter how small and I haven't heard a bad thing about this lens.

Is the extra $500 really worth spending for someone who never really intends on making money from photgraphy and just loves the hobby? This might not be able to be answered due to the lack of the reviews on the new lens but $500 is a long way to adding another much desired lens to the kit if it wasn't spent here.

You mean getting the older Nikon over the Sigma, or the newer Nikon over the older one? My gut tells me if you're shooting DX, picking up a used 70-200mm VR would be the best use of your money... though an even trade for the Sigma would be tempting.

You could probably sell the used lens later for close to what you paid when you want to upgrade to the VRII, and the price of the new lens will ikely drop closer to $2k. Most of the upgrades to the VRII sound like they affect full-frame cameras more than DX (increased corner sharpness, less vignetting), other than the better VR and being 1/4" shorter.

Nikonic1

Sounds like I'll keep my 70-300 and keep plinking the pennies in the piggy bank for the 70-200 VR lens.