Sigma 120-300 2.8 and nikon 70-200 2.2

[maximus1964]

I buy my much coveted 70-200 VRII next week. Then I see this Sigma beast! The focal length of the Sigma suits what I do but the Nikon could be better in closer shots and much smaller. My question is can anyone justify getting both or is it just insane. I know the Nikon holds it's value over time, how does the Sigma gear go? Pretend money is not an issue - what would you do?

[Big Pix]

.......... get both ...... easy to say, but you will find that different applications apply to both lens as one long lens is just not enough........ the Sigma has a good range, only that they can be a touch soft, this can be fixed with a re-calerbration by the agents.

Shooting with long lens is a lot different than using short lens. Shooting long lens at 2.8 you have got to be spot on with focus as a fraction of movement camera end will result with an out of focus image and not a lot of DOF

[Redgum]

I think you would be nuts to buy two. You'll always have the wrong one on the camera, bet on it. The Nikon lens is far superior and all you need is a doubler and you'll have 70-200mm at your finger tips or 140-400mm that is again superior to the Sigma. If you have a crop frame camera the sizes will be relative.
Bonus! You'll save money and actually be able to carry your gear without breaking a shoulder.

And the beauty with a fast lens is you can ramp up the speed so really DOF shake shouldn't be an issue.

[atky]

Hate to disagree Have the sigma 120 300 2.8 if the Nikon 70 200 is superior it must be a very exceptional lens. I have the 70 200 canon L hardly ever use it as the 120 300 dose most of what I want and it also takes a 2 times TC ( huge drop of in image quality would not use one ) 1.4 would be acceptable in good conditions.
The sigma has also just been released with OS (VR).
So in my opinion unless brand is important to you get the Sigma.
In sales we all know how important branding is for getting a better price and seldom has much to do with quality, Not suggesting that Nikon is not a great lens I don have one and haven't used one.

[Redgum]

Not suggesting that Nikon is not a great lens I don have one and haven't used one.

And that's the difference, you need to have used both to understand how far the Sigma has yet to go. I have. Also, the new Nikon doubler v3 is simply outstanding.
And, if you're doing it for fun it doesn't really matter but if you're travelling or working with good gear there's no better insurance than standardising the brand just for the sake of service. Been there too many times.

[atky]

Somehow I feel inadequate.

[Lance B]

I would suggest getting the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and also the 2x TCIII, that way, you have a smaller lens to start with and then add the TC when required. I have this combo and the 2x TCIII is a gem mated to the 70-200 and also to my Nikon 300 f2.8. If you don't need the reach, then get the 1.4x TCII which also works like a gem on the 70-200. I have sample photos from all the above combos if required.