Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Need some Opinions
May 29, 2012 04:51:09 #
About ready to make the plunge and purchase a 70-200mm 2.8 lens for my Nikon D7000. Go with the Nikon or save $1,700 and go with the new Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? Comments & Opinions please
May 29, 2012 09:38:38 #
ronzo wrote:
About ready to make the plunge and purchase a 70-200mm 2.8 lens for my Nikon D7000. Go with the Nikon or save $1,700 and go with the new Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? Comments & Opinions please
I went from the Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 to the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and have no regrets. Great lens at any price!
May 29, 2012 22:10:28 #
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.
May 30, 2012 12:04:25 #
ronzo wrote:
About ready to make the plunge and purchase a 70-200mm 2.8 lens for my Nikon D7000. Go with the Nikon or save $1,700 and go with the new Sigma 70-200mm 2.8? Comments & Opinions please
I can't comment on either of those lenses, but if you are going to that range you might also consider the 18 to 200 lenses. I got one for my Canon and really like it. It saves a lot of lens changing and still gives good pictures over that larger range.
Swede
May 30, 2012 13:29:14 #
Robeng
Loc: California
Hi,
Can't give an opinion on the Sigma because I don't own one. I do own the Nikor 70mm-200mm f2.8. VR2 and love it. It's incredibly sharp and durable. During a shoot I placed the lens on the back of my patrol car. It rolled off and fell to the ground and rolled a couple of feet. You can imagined how I felt! I put it on my D700 and it worked just fine. If you go to smugmug.com and type in robeng, to to my people galley and type in the password "girls." Most of those images were shot with my 70mm-200mm.
Can't give an opinion on the Sigma because I don't own one. I do own the Nikor 70mm-200mm f2.8. VR2 and love it. It's incredibly sharp and durable. During a shoot I placed the lens on the back of my patrol car. It rolled off and fell to the ground and rolled a couple of feet. You can imagined how I felt! I put it on my D700 and it worked just fine. If you go to smugmug.com and type in robeng, to to my people galley and type in the password "girls." Most of those images were shot with my 70mm-200mm.
May 30, 2012 14:22:59 #
listen to mtshooter...he knows what he's talking about. i went from a canon 70-200mm2.8 to the sigma 70-200mm2.8 after the canon lens was stolen......the sigma is somewhat sharper. i love it. i bought the sigma on mt's recommendation.
big thanks to mtshooter. i love this lens.
buy the sigma from a place that will let you return it if you don't like it. that's what i did. that way i could upgrade it to the canon if i wasn't happy with the sigma. now that i have the sigma..only way anybody is going to get it is when they pry my cold, dead hands off it. best photography purchase i have ever made.
i did return my sigma..only to upgrade it to the OS model (image stabilization)...and it is awesome at 1/15 shutter speeds in low light.
big thanks to mtshooter. i love this lens.
buy the sigma from a place that will let you return it if you don't like it. that's what i did. that way i could upgrade it to the canon if i wasn't happy with the sigma. now that i have the sigma..only way anybody is going to get it is when they pry my cold, dead hands off it. best photography purchase i have ever made.
i did return my sigma..only to upgrade it to the OS model (image stabilization)...and it is awesome at 1/15 shutter speeds in low light.
May 30, 2012 16:08:26 #
I went with neither and bought the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and love it. Takes sharp shots and the only thing I would change is it's weight but I can't so no sense going there. I do believe some of these lens might be a bit heavy to be hand held by a female (no letters please) aka Sigma 150-500 but I've hand held both and gotten tack sharp photos. Between the OS and the high shutter speeds you can shoot at this may not be a problem for most but both of these are a beast. I'm not sure of the weight or price difference between the Sigma and the Tamron W/O looking it up but just to let you know there is a 3rd option.......
May 30, 2012 16:17:08 #
coco1964 wrote:
Just checked and the Tamron is about double the weight at about 4.2 lbs but is half the price at around $765.00. That's alot of weight but I shoot alot of baseball and have no problen hand holding for 9 innings..........I went with neither and bought the Tamron 70-200 2... (show quote)
May 30, 2012 18:03:34 #
Want to say THANKS for all the feedback. This is what makes this an awsome site.
May 30, 2012 18:19:53 #
I own a Sigma 70 to 300mm micro lens and it is good glass, I have no regrets.. I would love to have a 70 to 200 2.8 that is my next lens as soon as I sell one of the kids.. LOL
May 30, 2012 19:38:40 #
In your original question you are not comparing Apples with Apples. The latest 70-200 VR II 2.8 costs in the neighborhood of $2,500. There is no way any $800 lens is in the same league. The comparable Sigma lens may cost less, but not that much less. The reality is we largely get what we pay for. The less expensive item may be acceptable, even good, but at the extreme settings will never provide as superior an image as the more expensive item. It all depends on how critically you look at and display your images. I use the 70-200 Nikkor 2.8 VRI, and it is the best lens I have ever held.
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
May 30, 2012 19:41:22 #
lesdmd wrote:
In your original question you are not comparing Ap... (show quote)
Its all a simple case of "Don't knock until you've tried it."
May 30, 2012 20:29:18 #
B&H has the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 on sale thru tomorrow at $100 off $1299.00 - not a bad price for this lens at all.
The Nikkor is going for $2396.95 and Includes Free: Tiffen 77mm Photo Twin Pack (UV Protection and Circular Polarizing Filter) ($66.69 Value) WooHoo!!! :)
I want this Sigma!! :D
The Nikkor is going for $2396.95 and Includes Free: Tiffen 77mm Photo Twin Pack (UV Protection and Circular Polarizing Filter) ($66.69 Value) WooHoo!!! :)
I want this Sigma!! :D
May 30, 2012 21:02:56 #
Its all a simple case of "Don't knock until you've tried it."[/quote]
You are correct, but only in the sense if you can't see the differences then for your purposes they are not there. I have tried the less expensive lens and it is not as good. Is the top end lens $1,700 better? That's a matter of debate, but not one of testable fact or acute inspection.
I've had a similar discussion regarding acoustic guitars, another passion of mine. I have some expensive guitars, including a custom made cut-away. Is it better than the excellent Taylor's I have. Absolutely. Is it 5 times better? When I'm playing it and am transported it is. Does anyone else hear a difference - I really don't care.
You are correct, but only in the sense if you can't see the differences then for your purposes they are not there. I have tried the less expensive lens and it is not as good. Is the top end lens $1,700 better? That's a matter of debate, but not one of testable fact or acute inspection.
I've had a similar discussion regarding acoustic guitars, another passion of mine. I have some expensive guitars, including a custom made cut-away. Is it better than the excellent Taylor's I have. Absolutely. Is it 5 times better? When I'm playing it and am transported it is. Does anyone else hear a difference - I really don't care.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.