Sigma vs Nikon: Serious about a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2 for my Nikon D700. I am not a professional photographer and salesman said I should think about a Sigma. Less expensive with same...

Johnvan

Serious about a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2 for my Nikon D700. I am not a professional photographer and salesman said I should think about a Sigma. Less expensive with same quality. About a $700 difference where I live. Heard nothing but good things about the Nikon lens. Would be grateful for some help in deciding. I want to mainly shot grandchildren playing hockey and baseball. Would appreciate comments.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Everyone has an opinion. I met with a professional photographer and he advised me to get Nikon. Which I did. Why don't you consider renting one of each? I'm satisfied with the decision I made,

Johnvan wrote:

Serious about a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2 for my Nikon D700. I am not a professional photographer and salesman said I should think about a Sigma. Less expensive with same quality. About a $700 difference where I live. Heard nothing but good things about the Nikon lens. Would be grateful for some help in deciding. I want to mainly shot grandchildren playing hockey and baseball. Would appreciate comments.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I have both, Depending on what I'm doing, I have found that there is not way to tell the difference, if it wasn't for the Sigma or Nikon label on them, you couldn't tell which is which. I have noticed the price gape is closing on them. Terry White on YouTube pushes the Sigma over the Nikon in some of his clips.

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

Go for the Sigma and spend the $700.00 you saved on yourself, the grandkids or a photo excursion with the grandkids .

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Just a note, make sure you talking nuts to nuts. Seven Hundred seems a little to much of gape. Since you didn't give the numbers, I have a funny feeling it might not be as it seems. Are they both stabilized, do both have the same motor drives for focus. A few things can make a big difference it the pricing.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Better than the Sigma is the Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 Di VC USD. The Tamron gets better reviews and is sharper than the Nikon. Check it out. ;)

naturepics43 Loc: Hocking Co. Ohio - USA

Bill Houghton wrote:

I have both, Depending on what I'm doing

So there is a difference ? What conditions would you choose one over the other?

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

My Longer lens 70 - 300 MM I think is a Nikon, the shorter 55-200 MM is the sigma, I have three Nikon bodies, I purchased the Sigma's as replacement. to a Nikon that had a broken plastic T Flange. It's a long story to make it short, I Choose the lens by the MM not the Manufacture.

shooting big Horn, the 300 MM. shooting Birds 200 MM. Shooting Street, 18-55. Shooting Parties 11-23 MM. Shooting trespassers 38 S&M

traveler90712 Loc: Lake Worth, Fl.

Johnvan wrote:

Serious about a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2 for my Nikon D700. I am not a professional photographer and salesman said I should think about a Sigma. Less expensive with same quality. About a $700 difference where I live. Heard nothing but good things about the Nikon lens. Would be grateful for some help in deciding. I want to mainly shot grandchildren playing hockey and baseball. Would appreciate comments.

Depends on what you want to get out of your lens.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-70-200mm-F28-EX-DG-APOMacro-HSM-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D700___608_441_1028_441_406_441

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

traveler90712 wrote:

Depends on what you want to get out of your lens.

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sigma-70-200mm-F28-EX-DG-APOMacro-HSM-II-Nikon-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Nikon-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D700___608_441_1028_441_406_441

Trying to figure out why you would compare an 11 year old non-stabilized model Sigma against a brand new VR II model Nikon? Nothing like stacking the deck.
Here are the current models in side-by-side:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-200mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D700-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D700-versus-70-200mm-F2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D700___223_441_406_441_320_441

chiya Loc: Wellsboro, Pa.

Bill Houghton wrote:

Shooting trespassers 38 S&M

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

prefer 44 spec. my self

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

MT Shooter wrote:

Trying to figure out why you would compare an 11 year old non-stabilized model Sigma against a brand new VR II model Nikon? Nothing like stacking the deck.

Thanks for coming in Shooter, I don't know the numbers, but I do know that spread is kind of much, I think know there running pretty well neck to neck.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

chiya wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

prefer 44 spec. my self

With the cost of ammunition, 38 works fine. LOL..

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Db7423 wrote:

Better than the Sigma is the Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 Di VC USD. The Tamron gets better reviews and is sharper than the Nikon. Check it out. ;)

i took the nikon and tamron 70-200/2.8 vrs on a shooting tour around the store. Finally chose the nikon for the focus speed and build. Looking only at the pictures, the nikon was a bit cold, the tamron crisper with great flesh tones in lower light..
(The $1000 cheaper price tag on the tamron might be an incentive)

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Bill Houghton wrote:

Thanks for coming in Shooter, I don't know the numbers, but I do know that spread is kind of much, I think know there running pretty well neck to neck.

The Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM latest model is $1249 New.
The Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F2.8G ED VR II latest model is $2399 New.
The Sigma is $1150 less money, and in my opinion that makes it a bargain buy. It may fall short of the Nikon in lab testing, but by VERY little. In the field its a wonderful lens to have and to use. I have shot this Sigma myself for 3 years now since selling my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D lens to buy it, and I love the Sigma, and feel I am giving up nothing by not having the Nikon.
But that's just my personal opinion too.
(Plus it looks like I just found you another $450 to play with.)