Sigma 70-200mm f2.8

[JasonR]

Thanks for the input guys. Called the local store and they are ordering one in for me to have a play with.
I was also reading up on the nikkor 70-200 f4.
Would the faster 2.8 sigma be better than the f4 nikkor?

[ameerat42]

1st up: Image quality and build quality. (And I certainly second the value of good OS/IS/VR...)
OK, is the f/2.8 still giving you the good IQ of other settings?
Am.

[arthurking83]

.....
Would the faster 2.8 sigma be better than the f4 nikkor?

in many situations where light is questionable, and hence exposure could be lacking .. even the lower resolution of the f/2.8 Sigma(compared to the apparent superior Nikon f/4) may in fact prove to be a significant advantage to have at your disposal.

With the f/2.8, you always have that extra one stop of exposure at your disposal.

[Epoc]

I have had the older version for a few years. It a great lens for the money. I just updated to the OS version as it came along at an unresistable price. The newer version is a tad sharper but the OS is awesome. It now makes this lens fantastic in low light. 1/30th sec and possibly a tad slower with a steady hand is tack sharp. The OS version can be had for around $1K grey now. Brilliant bang for your $

Just thought I'd add, AF is fast and accurate on both models. It's one of my favourite lenses and a long time keeper, so much so I just bought a LensCoat to keep it in good nick!

[JasonR]

I'd probably be better if with the siggy if I decided to use a teleconverter.

[ameerat42]

Jason. Just be careful when choosing a lens and a teleconverter. If you're talking about the Σ70-200, first have a look at
THIS CHART to check compatibility with Σ teleconverters.

Σ have changed the layout of their lens site recently - MUCH for the worse! You have to squint now.
Am.

[JasonR]

Cheers Ameerat. The lens will work with both the 1.4x and the 2x. I wasn't sure from reading the chart so I emailed them instead v

[Rattus79]

Cheers Ameerat. The lens will work with both the 1.4x and the 2x. I wasn't sure from reading the chart so I emailed them instead v

So I wasn't the only one who couldn't understand that chart then! Good!

[ameerat42]

Greg! That's progress. Clear and simple before, convoluted now! m

[enduro]

I can't tell you anything about the Nikon lens .... but that's not going to stop me typing!

The Sigma 70-200mm produces some excellent results for full frame (ie you are not cropping much out of the image). It even produces great results if you are cropping 25% off the image, after that you will get the best image the lens can produce, which may not be the best image your camera can produce. This might be the ideal lens for you, so don't eliminate it from you list. It would be great for sports photography, stage performance in low light, an all round shooter for what ever you might like to use if for, but it is not a professional quality lens. But it is very good.

I sold my Siggy 70-200mm last year for about 80% of what I bought it for 6 years ago and purchased the Canon 70-200mm MkII with all the bells and whistles. It is a MUCH better lens, super sharp and does a great job on the front of my 5DmkIII.

Knowing Nikon, they produce excellent lenses (most of the time - just like Canon, they have some duds) but you do need to purchase based on your current needs.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and a word about IS/OS or whatever.

IMHO (I'm not very humble actually), images stabilization, like Goretex boots, is a bit of a waste of time and money.

Until the last year, I have never purchased a IS lens and never needed it! Current (last three years and last 12mo in particular) cameras are capable of producing excellent full frame images at ISO 5000 in poor light conditions, WITHOUT Image Stabilization.

IS takes a while to kick in so don't expect it to fire up straight away and it chews up you batteries faster too!

What's more: if you are after "PRO results", you will be shooting with a tripod anyway and switching IS off as it is actually detrimental when on a tripod.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and a word about IS/OS or whatever.

IMHO (I'm not very humble actually), images stabilization, like Goretex boots, is a bit of a waste of time and money.

Until the last year, I have never purchased a IS lens and never needed it! Current (last three years and last 12mo in particular) cameras are capable of producing excellent full frame images at ISO 5000 in poor light conditions, WITHOUT Image Stabilization.

IS takes a while to kick in so don't expect it to fire up straight away and it chews up you batteries faster too!

What's more: if you are after "PRO results", you will be shooting with a tripod anyway and switching IS off as it is actually detrimental when on a tripod.

[Lurchorama]

Have the Sigma 2.8 EX DG OS HSM for my D800. I did a stack of research for this over the Nikon equivalent. Essentially 99.9% the performance for half the cost.
Zero complaints from me.
And at those focal lengths, OS/IS/VR/VC does make a difference when handheld. Especially considering 200mm isn't really THAT long and is a great length to hand hold.
And unless your a brand snob; you'll love it.

[JasonR]

Cheers lurchorama.
I just ordered mine yesterday from my local shop they have it for $1099 which I thought was a good price for a local store. Which is cheaper than a few grey stores.
Looking forward to have a go with it.

[manohartvs]

I have heard good things about the Tamron 70-200 as well? Maybe worth researching into the Tamron as well? Not sure which of the two lenses are superior though.

Does anyone have experience with the Tammy equivalent?

[JasonR]

The only thing that put me off the tamron is the push pull focus mechanism.

[dulvariprestige]

Jason the push pull focus was on the old version, the new VC has a switch