70-200 2.8 help

[Chris Pierce]

Ok guys, I sold the 70-300VR, I have the dough for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 but do I really need it? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma 70-200 2.8, 99% of the shooting I do is outside daylight sports, so I really don't need VR. Is it worth the extra $800-$900 more? I could buy the Sigma and the 85mm 1.4

I am already starting to feel guilty for spending $1500 on one lens, not so much on 2 lenses

Is it really THAT GOOD? what to do.....

 

[HappyFish]

Take two lenses, drink plenty of something, go to bed, get some rest, and if you still feel bad in the morning ship em to me.... Dr. Robert..my bill is in the mail

 

[natelam]

It's really THAT good. Get it and don't look back, you can thank me later.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

FWIW, I have both the sigma and nikkor 70-200's. My sigma is over 3 years old and the nikkor is less than a year old. I bought the nikkor for the VR.

I haven't tested the lenses side by side and don't intend to do so. There may be some minor differences in both IQ and performance, but I rather doubt that most folks could see a difference in prints from either lens and I believe that, aside from VR, most folks couldn't tell the difference in using the lenses. Of course, I'm comparing a sigma that has been replaced with new models, so there might be differences there that I have not seen.

If you want the 85 f/1.4, my advice would be to get the sigma and not worry about it. I'm keeping my sigma in case the nikkor goes south. :smile:

Keep in mind that this is from a guy that thinks the 85 f/1.8 is good enough for his needs. :biggrin:

 

[Chris Pierce]

WOW you are smart!! it must be the last name

 

[phecksel]

FWIW, I have both the sigma and nikkor 70-200's. My sigma is over 3 years old and the nikkor is less than a year old. I bought the nikkor for the VR.

I haven't tested the lenses side by side and don't intend to do so. There may be some minor differences in both IQ and performance, but I rather doubt that most folks could see a difference in prints from either lens and I believe that, aside from VR, most folks couldn't tell the difference in using the lenses. Of course, I'm comparing a sigma that has been replaced with new models, so there might be differences there that I have not seen.

If you want the 85 f/1.4, my advice would be to get the sigma and not worry about it. I'm keeping my sigma in case the nikkor goes south. :smile:

Keep in mind that this is from a guy that thinks the 85 f/1.8 is good enough for his needs. :biggrin:

Since you're in Detroit {somewhere}, let me borrow both lenses and I'll send a report on the results. May not return the best lens tho

 

[j_b_l]

Ok guys, I sold the 70-300VR, I have the dough for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 but do I really need it? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma 70-200 2.8, 99% of the shooting I do is outside daylight sports, so I really don't need VR. Is it worth the extra $800-$900 more? I could buy the Sigma and the 85mm 1.4

I am already starting to feel guilty for spending $1500 on one lens, not so much on 2 lenses

Is it really THAT GOOD? what to do.....

It's easy...spend $1500 on the 70-200VR, $800 on the 85/1.4, and another $1000 on the 17-55...you won't feel guilty at all about the 70-200 :wink:

Of all my lenses, I have thought about selling the 17-55 for the 28-70 a few times, I've sold and re-bought the 85/1.4, but I would *NEVER* consider selling my 70-200VR. It's that good.

 

[ubetcha]

Ok guys, I sold the 70-300VR, I have the dough for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 but do I really need it? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma 70-200 2.8, 99% of the shooting I do is outside daylight sports, so I really don't need VR. Is it worth the extra $800-$900 more? I could buy the Sigma and the 85mm 1.4

I am already starting to feel guilty for spending $1500 on one lens, not so much on 2 lenses

Is it really THAT GOOD? what to do.....

Buy the 85mm 1.4 and a monopod for your Sigma, you'll love the 85mm 1.4, I have both and use the Sigma 70-200 even late in the evening with a monopod. You won't regret it.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

WOW you are smart!! it must be the last name

Dunno, maybe. :biggrin: We might even be related, but maybe you wouldn't want to claim that either.

 

[Kerry Pierce]

Since you're in Detroit {somewhere}, let me borrow both lenses and I'll send a report on the results. May not return the best lens tho

heh, well, had you asked a few weeks ago, you could have come up to shoot some hockey with me at Arctic Edge and indoor soccer at High Velocity on Michigan Ave, just west of Belleville Rd in Canton.

I live on the far east side of detroit. I take 94 to Belleville rd, when I'm going to either of those locations.

I'll probably be doing lacrosse and soccer out that way soon. :Soccerbal You're welcome to come out and take some shots with your cam. Be advised though, f/2.8 glass with fast AF, is very addictive.

But, you gotta return both lenses, when asked........:Guns: :biggrin:

 

[Uncle Frank]

Ok guys, I sold the 70-300VR, I have the dough for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 but do I really need it? Is the IQ any better than the Sigma 70-200 2.8, 99% of the shooting I do is outside daylight sports, so I really don't need VR. Is it worth the extra $800-$900 more? I could buy the Sigma and the 85mm 1.4

If you're gonna buy the 85/1.4, just get a 180/2.8 and you'll have both ends of the 70-200's zoom range covered. I've hardly used my 80-200 since I acquired the 85/1.4 and 180/2.8.

 

[Billy Ng]

I've had both (had the Sigma when I shot Canon, have the VR now) .... image quality is extremely similar. If you don't need VR, save the $600 and get the Sigma .. simple as that. If nothing else, I want the Sigma just for the built-in close-up work. It's not a true macro, but being able to get closer to my subject is something I'm always looking for.

 

[Dave]

While the 70-200 VR does take great pictures (at least the one I rented did), I did find it a bit bulky and heavy to use as an everyday lens. However, that's just me. Personally I would like to have 2 lenses over one myself, especially a low light master like the 85 f/1.4.

Good luck choosing.

 

[Chris Pierce]

you guys aren't helping me

half of you say yes it is that good! get it you won't regret it.

the other half says save the money, get 2 lenses instead.

 

[wbeem]

It's big, it's bulky, and it barely fits in my Crumpler bag without sticking up out of a corner. I use the 28-70 more than the 70-200 so far. Bought 'em both at the same time, and I still don't regret the 70-200 purchase. It's not my main lens, but it's great when I do use it. It'll last for years with stunning IQ, and I'll never have doubts about getting something I considered "lesser" quality in order to save some momentary money. For those reasons, I don't regret the purchase at all. I'm glad I got it.

Like you and others, I still want the 85mm f/1.4. I'll get it sooner or later. Until then, I'm happy with the good stuff in my bag now.

 

[Jetta32696]

Yes, the 70-200 is that good... You won't regret buying it. Once you get it, use it and fall in love with it, you'll forget about the thoughts of ever owning the sigma. :biggrin:

Wait a few months, then get the 85 1.4.... IMO it's another one of those must have lenses!! I don't like the 85 as much as the 70-200, but I've still got alot to learn about the 85...

 

[mikefitz6]

Comparison Sigma and Nikon 70-200 f2.8

OK, the only conclusion you can draw from these shots is that THIS Nikon was better at f2.8 than THIS Sigma. Maybe, sort of....... I shot both of these on a tripod. I did not move the tripod. Both lenses at 200mm. No in camera changes. Both shot with mirror lock up and second depression of the shutter. These were taken about 2 1/2 minutes apart

I was only trying to decide which lense I would keep. As I increased the f stop the difference seemed to be less noticable. I am not interested in posting more pictures. The real life shots I took of the Sigma seemed very good, without the obvious color difference you see here.

Sigma 70-200 at 200mm f2.8 100% crop.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nikon 70-200 VR at 200mm f2.8 100% crop.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Anyway, something else to think about. :biggrin:

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

I sold a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and replaced w/ a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX D, mainly for financial reason. I've been extremely happy with this move. The 70-200mm VR was by far the sharpest lens I've ever owned... but I've never noticed the Sigma being softer outside of doing tests like mikefitz6 did (though my results were much closer in sharpness than his, i don't still have them though). The Sigma is also noticably smaller (same length with hood ON as Nikkor w/ hood OFF) and ligher... it balances much better on my D50 and this negates some (though not all) of the VR advantage.

When I sold my Nikkor 70-200mm VR for $1500 (a $500 proffit to begin with, sold to someone in the UK, their Nikkor prices are rediculous) I had already picked up the Sigma 70-200mm EX D for $500 used in perfect conditon.

I used the difference to buy a new home theater projector (my other hobby) and also paid for Christmas (presents for wife, parents, brother/sister-in-law). I'm an amateur-enthusiast and a value shopper... this leads me exclusively to third-party lenses and usually to Sigma. Their value is amazing, especially in the used market (lower resell value being a plus for me). My current lens kit (5 Sigma lenses) cost less COMBINED than a single Nikkor 17-55mm, 28-70mm, or 70-200mm VR. 90% (or more) of the performance at 1/3 the price is tough for me to argue with, especially since right now there's no income associated with my photography.

I think my wife may have been the happiest with all this since she got a Coach purse and Dior sunglasses out of the deal!

 

[snakeman]

Cannot comment on the nikon 70-200mm but I did use to own the sigma 70-200mm and found it a fantastic piece of glass..only reason I sold it was to get more reach so went for the sigma 100-300mm f4 which I feel is even better!

 

[topher04r1]

i sold my sigma 70-200 because it was WAY to soft at 2.8 ... POS....