70-200mm f/2.8 lens poll

EphTwoEight

Decisions decisions.

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

This aint looking too favorable so far...

SloYerRoll

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

You get what you pay for.

Robinivich

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Wow! Decisive results so far!

Mike02

1. Tamron; 18 Elements 13 Groups

:cry :cry :cry :cry money aint everything. :cry :cry :cry :cry

System

I just made this choice
I agonized for 3 weeks over this same issue. Let me save you a little trouble and offer my $.02.
I did the research and the only distinguishable differences I found between the Nikon and Sigma versions was Nikon's us of VR and Sigma's non use of such a feature and the $900 price seperation . I wasn't able to find much information on the tamron version, so my choice was narrowed to the previous 2.
I ordered the sigma 70-200 F2.8 II on Wednesday from Canoga Camera . I was in a real need to have it by Thursday morning by 10am. (long story short, I can be a procrastinator when it comes to shelling out money, even if I need the item say 10 minutes from now ). Any way Canoga Camera came through like champs and I got my lens in time. The build quality is impeccable, mechanics are smooth and spot on, the HSM for AF nails the subject instantly. And so far the crisp, snappy, vibrant pictures I have gotten are truely amazing. Email me and I will try to send you a couple unedited examples.
So in summary if you truly want the VR capabilities then by the Nikon version or research the tamron release coming soon. For my money it was a tough choice, but ultimately saving my self $900 was worth it as I was also able to purchase the 24-70mm F/2.8 to round out the range in which to shoot from.
It goes with out saying, I am not the caliber of pro that I see on here, but I am every growing and learning and with these 2 new lenses, and time to master them, I might then be able to join that caliber.

Buy the SIMGA IMHO

The Mack

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

I've got to go w/ the VR/L hands down.

spider-t

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Hope this poll helps you give yourself permission to get it. That's my favorite Nikon lens. Really outstanding.
-Trish

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Hey Barro, good points, you should post some shots with it anyway.

Still considering it.

Thanks Trish, (I hope so too!!)

swintonphoto

1. Tamron; 18 Elements 13 Groups

Unless you are feeding your family with this specific lens, I would go with the Tamron or Sigma. MUCH more affordable, and will likely give you results as good as the Nikkor in most situations.

Here are some great reviews:

Sigma: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/217/cat/31
Tamron: Can't find one
Nikon: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/13

System

2 hi res jpeg examples.

EphTwoEight wrote:

Hey Barro, good points, you should post some shots with it anyway.

Still considering it.

Thanks Trish, (I hope so too!!)

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Wow! Them are as sharp as a tack where it counts! Very nice.

Art Scott

2. Sigma; 18 Elements 15 Groups

i have only owned 2 camera mfg'ers lenses (both fuji and fuji had a very hard multi coating....EBC coating....electron bean (lazer) coating) all the rest have been either Sigma or Vivatar( First Gen Series 1 70-210).....now it is only Sigma and as long as I get superb images with Sigma...I'll stick with them.....unless I really need what ever the camera mfg'er lens features that I cannot get with Sigma.......

johng

I owned the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for 4 years (non DG non macro version). I own the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS now.

Here's my honest feedback. My version of the sigma was very sharp. in prints, indistinguisable from the canon except at 200mm where the canon was more consistently sharp. focus performance was excellent and build quality was good except for the paint - which isn't too big of a deal because it's black over black.

Where I've seen a difference is in low light focus performance. The canon is definitely faster and more accurate in low light. The sigma hunted a bit more.

If I weren't using it for low light sports I would say the sigma easily gave more bang-for-the-buck. But I do use it for sports so the extra speed accuracy in low light is worth the extra $$.

However, I've heard a lot more complaints since Sigma changed the lens and added the psuedo macro capability to it. The fact they are releasing a mkII of the lens so soon afterwards might support the notion they introduced issues with the lens. Of course, there are a LOT more people using dslrs today than 4 years ago so complaints could be due to that.

I will say though, based upon mine and a friend's experience with Sigma - their tolerances for focus accuracy seem to be a bit looser than Canon L. This became evident when myself and this person got mkIIIs and calibrated our lenses. Of the 4 sigma EX lenses between us, 3 needed calibration. None of our 5 L lenses needed it.

So take all that for what it's worth.

thegridrunner

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

I went through the same problem last year and decided to go with the sigma. I took it to a photo meetup to shoot a boating contest the very next day. It was about 95 degrees outside and I shot for about a hour when all of a sudden, the lens focus ring stopped working. It locked into infinity and wouldn't come out of it. I finished shooting with a shorter nikon zoom. After taking it home, the lens cooled down and started working again...
I went online as started looking at some of the reviews for this lens and found someone who experienced the same failure on a hot day.

I returned the lens the next day and ordered the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens. It was sharper at the extremes, faster and reliable in hot weather. I will only buy nikon zooms when they are going to be my main lenses. I will still look at other lenses from different manufactorers but I will follow the reviews more carefully.

batts

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

I have the AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 and haven't looked back. I personally feel I probably don't use it as much as I should use a lens which I spent so much money on, but can't say I regret buying it. The VR is great, and the focus is super fast. I could always sell it at a little loss, or maybe even a little profit. I picked up a Kenko 1.4x pro 300DG for it, and can't wait to shoot some more with it soon. I'm sure I will have it for a long time. I have never tried a different brand in this lens though, so I can't comment on that.

Though side note here I can't wait till my 11-16mm Tokain f/2.8 ships. I do like the cost savings of the non-Nikkor lenses.

claudermilk

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

johng summed up why I voted the OEM lens (Canon's L for me). It's the low-light performance that drove me to the f2.8 version in the first place, so having a decidedly superior AF response is very important. If you don't need that, then from al lthe reviews and comments I've seen the Sigma is a perfectly viable alternative. I'm not sure why anyone would vote for the Tamron yet as AFAIK, there aren't any in the field yet and nobody's actually used one who's commented online--it's still an unknown quantity around here.

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

claudermilk wrote:

johng summed up why I voted the OEM lens (Canon's L for me). It's the low-light performance that drove me to the f2.8 version in the first place, so having a decidedly superior AF response is very important. If you don't need that, then from al lthe reviews and comments I've seen the Sigma is a perfectly viable alternative. I'm not sure why anyone would vote for the Tamron yet as AFAIK, there aren't any in the field yet and nobody's actually used one who's commented online--it's still an unknown quantity around here.

True, but I saw the Tamron in a Canon mount at our local camera shop, and it looked nice, but they dont/wont carry the Sigma's.?

Maverick_Brittany

2. Sigma; 18 Elements 15 Groups

I hate to throw a wrench into the mix here but have a question to add on.
There are many non VR Nikon 70 - 200 2.8 lens on the market.
Seeing as the Sigma does not have VR either how does it compare to the non VR nikon lens. My goal is to purchase my own 70-200 2.8 lens in the next two weeks as well. What does everyone think about the non VR version of the lens and is it a better option for my D200 then the Sigma?

Thanks

Mav....

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Hey Mav, I've yet to see any other makers offer one with the VR. Some here have some great experience with their non-VR Sigmas, and I'm still half tempted, but as one guy pointed out, his quit focusing when it got hot. And its dang hot here in So. Utah, and other places I like to visit. Plus I'm less than happy with my Sigma 10-20mm and even if I have to wait a bit longer, I may spring for the Nikkor.

Course if Canon comes out with the new 5D soon, and its the best thing ever, then I might just switch all together. I have no brand loyalty.

claudermilk

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

EphTwoEight wrote:

True, but I saw the Tamron in a Canon mount at our local camera shop, and it looked nice, but they dont/wont carry the Sigma's.?

Really? So that means they're shipping now. I didn't think they were yet. I'd expect some reviews to start showing up soon. Did you happen to get them to allow you to fondle one for a little while?

EphTwoEight

3. Nikkor, or 'L' Series, at double the price.

Yeah, it seems nice, and just as heavy as the Nikkor, it focused fast and easy enough, just that cheesy Canon camera it was mounted to was distracting to use it on though. But plenty of shutter speed at 2.8 to get a good shot inside the store.