1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Quick comparison between Sigma and Nikkor 70-200

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by atoronto, Sep 24, 2008.

  1. atoronto

    atoronto

    180
    Jun 16, 2008
    Toronto
    I visited local store this evening and did a quick comparison between Sigma 70-200 II and Nikon 70-200 VR, 1st image Sigma and 2nd image Nikon.
    DSC_0807.
    NIKON D700    ---    200mm    f/2.8    1/400s    ISO 3200

    DSC_0810.
    NIKON D700    ---    200mm    f/2.8    1/400s    ISO 3200
     
  2. Fascinating comparison. Love the bokeh in both.

    Craig
     
  3. Same settings? Why is the sigma so much darker? I have always felt sigmas behave poorly with metering. From what you post colors go to sigma barely and sharpness goes to nikon by a stretch. $.02
     
  4. The Ben

    The Ben

    604
    Oct 17, 2007
    Houston, Tx
    I wouldn't trade my 70-200 VR for any lens, regardless of cost. Well, maybe a 200 f/2!!!
     
  5. Me neither.

    AM
     
  6. TheCommons

    TheCommons

    112
    Jul 2, 2008
    LA, CA ;)
    EXIF indicate same f stop, shutter speed and ISO. The nikkor looks better exposed by half a stop
     
  7. PeteZ28

    PeteZ28

    Oct 5, 2007
    Newtown, PA
    Checking the EXIF data on those shows same exposure; 1/400 @ 2.8 ISO 3200.

    I wouldn't say the Sigma has better color, I'd say it looks for some reason less exposed and darker (thus, better percieved saturation). Could be crappy flickering flourescent lighting in the store, someone in the store moved blocking some light, But more than likely the Sigma just a "darker" lens for some reason. Most likely inferior coatings on the lens elements. Either way they are both GREAT lenses and for half the cost of the Nikon the Sigma is far away from a junk lens.
     
  8. I agree. Although I own the 70-200VR (again), I am impressed by how far Sigma has come. The sharpness issues actually could be because of VR, so more tests are needed. I also agree about the exposure. I have found in the week that I have owned my Sigma 30/1.4 that exposure is definitely different than on the Nikkor 35/2. But, once you learn the lens, you can easily deal with that. All in all, I am becoming more and more impressed with Sigma. If the new Sigma 70-200/2.8 came with OS, then that would be very tempting indeed.

    Craig
     
  9. It's possible Sigma cheats and it's not really 2.8. I've seen this with other Sigma lenses, wide open is darker than stopped down. Makes me question actual aperture value vs. reported aperture value.


     
  10. PeteZ28

    PeteZ28

    Oct 5, 2007
    Newtown, PA
    I was thinking that too Joe, could be like a f3 or f3.1 but they label it as the closest full f/stop. Or it could be the 70-200 is a little fatter than f2.8, or a combination of both.

    I'm would still strongly suspect Nikon's superior coating and ED glass play some part in retaining brightness though.

    F-stops are just mathematical equations based on aperature and lens diameter/focal length ratios, not the actual light transmission ability of the glass itself.
     
  11. giletti

    giletti

    170
    Jan 12, 2008
    Victoria, BC
    I am seeing a similar behavior with the Nikon AF-D 50mm f/1.4 when comparing f/2 and f/4 i.e.
     
  12. Good point Pete, my only comment would be why would it appear the same as Nikon at f4 and smaller if the light transmission were inferior (should impact exposure across the range)?

    I've only seen Sigmas have issues where wide open was dark and the rest of the range was brighter (from f4-f16). So I'm leaning towards f2.8 not being quite as "wide open" as 2.8 on Nikon lenses. :smile:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.