70-200 2.8 help

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Chris Pierce, Apr 12, 2007.

  1. Chris Pierce

    Chris Pierce Guest

    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.....
     
  2. HappyFish

    HappyFish

    Oct 19, 2006
    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
     
  3. It's really THAT good. Get it and don't look back, you can thank me later.
     
  4. Kerry Pierce

    Kerry Pierce

    955
    Jan 7, 2006
    Detroit
    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:
     
  5. Chris Pierce

    Chris Pierce Guest

    WOW you are smart!! it must be the last name :)
     
  6. 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 :)
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. ubetcha

    ubetcha

    Nov 12, 2006
    San Diego, Ca
    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.
     
  9. Kerry Pierce

    Kerry Pierce

    955
    Jan 7, 2006
    Detroit
    Dunno, maybe. :biggrin: We might even be related, but maybe you wouldn't want to claim that either. :eek:
     
  10. Kerry Pierce

    Kerry Pierce

    955
    Jan 7, 2006
    Detroit
    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. :eek:

    But, you gotta return both lenses, when asked........:Guns: :biggrin:
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. Billy Ng

    Billy Ng

    722
    Jan 22, 2007
    Hartsdale, NY
    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.
     
  13. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    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.
     
  14. Chris Pierce

    Chris Pierce Guest

    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.
     
  15. wbeem

    wbeem

    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    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.
     
  16. 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...
     
  17. 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.

    [​IMG]

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

    [​IMG]

    Anyway, something else to think about. :biggrin:
     
  18. 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!
     
  19. snakeman

    snakeman

    Feb 26, 2006
    UK
    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!
     
  20. topher04r1

    topher04r1 Guest

    i sold my sigma 70-200 because it was WAY to soft at 2.8 ... POS....
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Help with decission for (budget friendly) FX wide zoom Lens Lust Nov 12, 2017
Help w/24-85 Compare Lens Lust Oct 23, 2017
Help to decide between D and G lenses Lens Lust Jul 22, 2017
Water dipped teleconver help :) Lens Lust May 30, 2017
Help with Sigma USB dock shooting distance. Lens Lust Sep 3, 2016