Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

[Loa]

Hello,

Where I live the price difference (taxes and shipped) is about 825$ (Nikon = 1775 and Sigma is 950).

Both are big and heavy lenses, both give very good IQ, both have HSM (or SWM) focusing abd both are FF capable.

Main difference: VR.

But when I tried the Sigma lens I realized that those lenses are so heavy that unless you shake a lot or take very long exposures, the VR might be less useful than on a very light lens.

So for you guys that have tried them: is the VR and (slight?) differences in IQ worth 850$

Thanks

Loa

P.S. See msg #5 for 28-70 range.

[g-man]

The bokeh of the Nikon alone is worth the price of admission for me over the sigma. I just don't like the bokeh of the sigma at all. VR gets used a bunch.

[cyclohexane]

VR is pretty darn handy... especially since I've gotten sharp images at 1/30 of a second at 200mm.

[Jeff Perry]

Loa, I own both lenses, got the Sigma first, and the "upgraded" to the Nikon.

As you know the rule of thumb for hand-holding any lens is you should be able to use a shutter speed that is the reciprocal of the focal length, i.e, 200mm at 1/200th of a second. In my case, I was not able to hand-hold the Sigma at that SS, usually having to use something closer to 1/500 in most shooting sitations, just unsteady at that focal length I guess. Using the lens at anything tighter than 2.8 forced the choice of upping the ISO in some lighting situations. And trust me, shooting high ISO with a D300 or D3 is much more forgiving than my original D70 and D200. Hence the VR was a God-send for me, and worth the price of admission.

If your intention is to be shooting a lot of tripod, or stop-action, high shutter speed work then the VR is not as big an issue, the 2.8 bokeh and the ISO capabilities of the body to which the lens is attached may be more important.

One additional spec difference you didn't mention but probably deserves consideration in the minimum focusing distance and the "pseudo-macro" reproduction ratio. The Sigma focuses down to about 40" and gives a respectable 1:3.5 magnifcation ratio, while Nikon's minimum focusing distance is 5 feet, and at 200mm only gives you a 1:6.5 reproduction. For some applications a 5' minimimu separation between you and your subject may be a difficult working distance at best, and at worst may not get you the scene you were hoping to get out of 200mm lens.

Jeff

[Loa]

Hello,

Wow! Quite the unanimous reply! I knew the Nikon was better, but at close to twice the price, I expected a few Sigma fans to show up.

I'm hesitating between getting a 70-200 f/2.8, or a 24-70 f/2.8.

So second query: Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 Vs Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 Vs Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8.

Price differential here, today, including taxes and shipping: Nikon = 1800, Sigma = 540, Tamron = 500$. Difference: 1260$ Between Nikon and rivals.

The lens differences are: no HSM on the Sigma/Tamron and probably lower IQ.

But the price difference is incredible.

Is the Nikon worth more than 3 times the cost?

Thanks

Loa

[cyclohexane]

I'm hesitating between getting a 70-200 f/2.8, or a 24-70 f/2.8.

Which range do you shoot more? Also, the 70-200 has a minimum focusing distance of 5 feet, while the 24-70 has a much shorter one, which means there are images you can't get at 70mm with the longer lens without cropping.

Is the Nikon worth more than 3 times the cost?

Construction-wise, yes. Guaranteed forward compatibility, probably. Optically, no. I'd get the Tamron if money is an issue.

[Loa]

Hello,

Thing is, I've gotten used to the incredible range of Nikon's 18-200 and I use it all from start to end.

I think the 24-70 range will be more useful for me, but the lack of VR on a 1800$ lens is a pain. I know it's not as big an issue on the 24-70 as it would be on the 70-200mm, but when you buy a f/2.8 lens, you're going to be pushing it, often in low light. So even at mid range, a VR would have been a big plus. One source of blurring eliminated.

Also, I'm tired of hearing the screw-drive hunting on my non AF-S lenses, so I want a HSM/SWM lens.


I really wanted to buy a new lens or two, but I can't find one that's perfect at 24-70. The Nikon is pretty damn close, but 1800$?? Not sure my experience justifies such an expense.

On the other hand, the D300 would be a dream for me, as will be the D90 if it's priced far enough away from the D300. But I know that in 5 years I'm going to replace any of them, while a f/2.8 lens will stay with me longer.

Sigh. I finally have money to spend, but I feel like I'm just a few months away from a HSM version of Sigma's 24-70 (and the D90 if I decide to get a body instead).

Thanks for your input!

Loa

[cyclohexane]

So even at mid range, a VR would have been a big plus

Definitely. I wish the 24-70 had VR.

I feel like I'm just a few months away from a HSM version of Sigma's 24-70 (and the D90 if I decide to get a body instead).

Sigma's 24-70 has been out forever and probably won't get an HSM update. They have a newer design, the 24-60, which is more likely to get HSM, though it'll probably be a new lens design in that range.

[Loa]

Hello Michael,

So in the 24-70 range you'd prefer the Tamron for its price/quality ratio? I've heard bad things about Tamron's micromotors, and as I still use a D70, should I find a screw-drive version?

I tried buying one 2 months ago but missed a very good deal on the last one they had. Guess I'll hunt for deals again.

Loa

[Douglas]

Since the D90 is mentioned, is this going to be released in the near future or just an assumption based on past trends? Just curious as I would expect a year or 2 from now to be looking at a new digi cam to replace the used D70 I just got.

Sorry for the sidetrack. Just curious

[g-man]

Originally Posted by Loa

Hello,

Wow! Quite the unanimous reply! I knew the Nikon was better, but at close to twice the price, I expected a few Sigma fans to show up.

I'm hesitating between getting a 70-200 f/2.8, or a 24-70 f/2.8.

So second query: Nikon's 24-70 f/2.8 Vs Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 Vs Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8.

Price differential here, today, including taxes and shipping: Nikon = 1800, Sigma = 540, Tamron = 500$. Difference: 1260$ Between Nikon and rivals.

The lens differences are: no HSM on the Sigma/Tamron and probably lower IQ.

But the price difference is incredible.

Is the Nikon worth more than 3 times the cost?

Thanks

Loa

The new 24-70 from Nikon is regarded as the best 24-70 2.8 zoom ever made for an SLR. All others are compromises. It's that simple. It costs a lot and it still sells out at many retailers. That must tell you something.

[Loa]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Since the D90 is mentioned, is this going to be released in the near future or just an assumption based on past trends?

Many think that it will be announced at, or more likely just before, Photokina in September. But, as always, these are educated guesses. No convincing leaks have appeared so far.

Originally Posted by g-man

The new 24-70 from Nikon is regarded as the best 24-70 2.8 zoom ever made for an SLR. All others are compromises. It's that simple. It costs a lot and it still sells out at many retailers. That must tell you something.

Of course it does. But quality is not everything, otherwise we'd all be driving 500,000$ cars and living in multi-million dollar homes.

Loa

[cyclohexane]

So in the 24-70 range you'd prefer the Tamron for its price/quality ratio? I've heard bad things about Tamron's micromotors, and as I still use a D70, should I find a screw-drive version?

I have the Nikon 24-70 and love it, but like you said... we'd all be driving $500,000 cars if quality was everything.

Yes, get the old screwdrive Tamron if you can.

[g-man]

Originally Posted by Loa

Of course it does. But quality is not everything, otherwise we'd all be driving 500,000$ cars and living in multi-million dollar homes.

Loa

You asked if the Nikon was worth three times the cost. To me it is. To you, I guess not.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by g-man

The new 24-70 from Nikon is regarded as the best 24-70 2.8 zoom ever made for an SLR. All others are compromises. It's that simple. It costs a lot and it still sells out at many retailers. That must tell you something.

I'd say you're right, but I don't know how much you want to read into the fact that I went ahead and sold the 24-70 and kept the 28-70 NIkon f/2.8. What's more is that I have not clamored to run out and get another copy of the 24-70 yet.

Also, I've had both the Sigma 70-200 and the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 lenses. I did go ahead and sell the Sigma 70-200 in order to purchase the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and I do believe that the Nikon is a bit better and does have the advantage of the VR system. The VR helps and it helps a lot.

Julio

[g-man]

I read a good bit about motors failing on the 28-70. If I had a good working 28-70 when the 24-70 came out I might not switch. I'd imagine the 28-70 took a pretty big hit on the used market for sellers trying to sell it off when the 24-70 was announced also.

[stdon]

Originally Posted by g-man

I read a good bit about motors failing on the 28-70. If I had a good working 28-70 when the 24-70 came out I might not switch. I'd imagine the 28-70 took a pretty big hit on the used market for sellers trying to sell it off when the 24-70 was announced also.