PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
Photo of the Week Photo of the Week

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photo Community > Cameras and Lenses > Nikon Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-24-2008   #1 (permalink)
Loa
Guanaco
 
Loa's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec
Posts: 447
Loa has much to be proud ofLoa has much to be proud of
CamelKarma: 135
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

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.

__________________
__________________
Members don't see this ad. Register your free account today and become a member on PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photo Community, gaining access to posting privileges, contests, free plug-ins and other downloads, unlimited online storage for your photographs, reviews, free marketplace listings, and much more.
__________________
---

My Humble Gallery

(Now translated in French/English)
Loa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #2 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
g-man's Avatar
 
Location: Town of Halloween
Posts: 208
g-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 327
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

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.
g-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #3 (permalink)
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,662
cyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 685
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

VR is pretty darn handy... especially since I've gotten sharp images at 1/30 of a second at 200mm.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #4 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 98
Jeff Perry is just really nice
CamelKarma: 52
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

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
Jeff Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #5 (permalink)
Loa
Guanaco
 
Loa's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec
Posts: 447
Loa has much to be proud ofLoa has much to be proud of
CamelKarma: 135
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

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
__________________
---

My Humble Gallery

(Now translated in French/English)
Loa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #6 (permalink)
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,662
cyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 685
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #7 (permalink)
Loa
Guanaco
 
Loa's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec
Posts: 447
Loa has much to be proud ofLoa has much to be proud of
CamelKarma: 135
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

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
__________________
---

My Humble Gallery

(Now translated in French/English)
Loa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2008   #8 (permalink)
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,662
cyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 685
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

Quote:
So even at mid range, a VR would have been a big plus
Definitely. I wish the 24-70 had VR.

Quote:
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.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #9 (permalink)
Loa
Guanaco
 
Loa's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec
Posts: 447
Loa has much to be proud ofLoa has much to be proud of
CamelKarma: 135
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

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
__________________
---

My Humble Gallery

(Now translated in French/English)
Loa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #10 (permalink)
Dromedary
 
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,099
Douglas has a reputation beyond reputeDouglas has a reputation beyond reputeDouglas has a reputation beyond reputeDouglas has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 396
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

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
Douglas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #11 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
g-man's Avatar
 
Location: Town of Halloween
Posts: 208
g-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 327
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
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.
g-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #12 (permalink)
Loa
Guanaco
 
Loa's Avatar
 
Location: Quebec
Posts: 447
Loa has much to be proud ofLoa has much to be proud of
CamelKarma: 135
Editing OK?: Yes
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by g-man View Post
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
__________________
---

My Humble Gallery

(Now translated in French/English)
Loa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #13 (permalink)
F1 Camel
 
cyclohexane's Avatar
 
Location: Westwood
Posts: 4,662
cyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond reputecyclohexane has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 685
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

Quote:
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.
__________________
-Michael
cyclohexane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #14 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
g-man's Avatar
 
Location: Town of Halloween
Posts: 208
g-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 327
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loa View Post
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.
g-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #15 (permalink)
F1 Camel
 
Nikonfreak's Avatar
 
Location: South Florida
Posts: 2,545
Nikonfreak has a reputation beyond reputeNikonfreak has a reputation beyond reputeNikonfreak has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 266
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200

Quote:
Originally Posted by g-man View Post
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
__________________
The world is full of dreamers. And rightfully so, God created us that way. But at some point in our lives, we have the choice: to keep the dream for sleeping, or to wake up and live it.
Nikonfreak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #16 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
g-man's Avatar
 
Location: Town of Halloween
Posts: 208
g-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond reputeg-man has a reputation beyond repute
CamelKarma: 327
Editing OK?: Ask first
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

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.
g-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2008   #17 (permalink)
Vicuna
 
Location: Oregon
Posts: 141
stdon is a jewel in the rough
CamelKarma: 41
Editing OK?: No
Default Re: Sigma 70-200 Vs Nikon 70-200 (Added 28-70 range)

Quote:
Originally Posted by g-man View Post
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.