Sigma 70 200mm f/2.8: I've read quite a bit of reviews on this (Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD) new glass (Nikon) and i'm on the verge of purchasing it, i think. But before...

Kennyg36 Loc: Atlanta

I've read quite a bit of reviews on this (Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD) new glass (Nikon) and i'm on the verge of purchasing it, i think. But before i do, i'd like to hear from one's on here that as physically used it. The Nikon VRII runs about $2300 vs $1185 for this one (on Amazon). I'm not a professional, but love doing the sports side of photographing. For the money i don't feel there's much difference for my money.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I have and use the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, but mine is the non-OS version as I never use OS under 300mm anyway. Its a wonderfully sharp lens and I sold my Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D lens to buy it, and I'm glad I did. The Sigma focuses MUCH faster than the older Nikon lens did, and its every bit as sharp.

vinnya Loc: connecticut

have the lens and use it on my canon and love it

Sheila Loc: Arizona or New York

Notice you had an older Nikon lens. I am trying to decide between the Nikon and the Sigma lens. There is a significant price difference. What about other characteristics? You mention speed of focus and sharpness. What about contrast and minimum focusing distance?

ace-mt Loc: Montana

I have the non-IS version. My absolute favorite lens, It seldom comes off of my camera.

laurmichll Loc: Hamilton N.j.

I have owned the Sigma 70-200 lens for about a year now and I love the pictures I take with it. I shoot with a Nikon d300s and a D80 and it works great. 2 of my kids ice skate and 1 is on the swimmimng team so lighting is tough. With the Sigma lens it is never a problem. Pictures are clear and sharp.

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

laurmichll wrote:

I have owned the Sigma 70-200 lens for about a year now and I love the pictures I take with it. I shoot with a Nikon d300s and a D80 and it works great. 2 of my kids ice skate and 1 is on the swimmimng team so lighting is tough. With the Sigma lens it is never a problem. Pictures are clear and sharp.

Nothing wrong with the Sigma, although, after quite a bit of checking, I chose the Tamron (same spec) and have found it fine.

Newsuan Loc: Coatesville

I love my Sigma 70-200. I have the one with stabilization. I'm an amateur but the lens makes me look like a pro, because the pictures are so sharp it's scary

pigpen

I know a guy who owns the Tamron version (non IS), and he loves it.

HelloMello Loc: Miami, Florida

Newsuan wrote:

I love my Sigma 70-200. I have the one with stabilization. I'm an amateur but the lens makes me look like a pro, because the pictures are so sharp it's scary

Ha-ha that's me too, especially the scary part.

I am looking for a 2.8 zoom but sick of looking for a used Nikkor VR1 for under $1000, forget the VR2 that is for someone else. I am thinking about a used Sigma f2.8 70-200 os hsm and they sell new for $1200, what price do people here think I should pay for a used one?

amehta Loc: Boston

HelloMello wrote:

Ha-ha that's me too, especially the scary part.

I am looking for a 2.8 zoom but sick of looking for a used Nikkor VR1 for under $1000, forget the VR2 that is for someone else. I am thinking about a used Sigma f2.8 70-200 os hsm and they sell new for $1200, what price do people here think I should pay for a used one?

To get a scale of prices for used equipment, I usually look at what KEH charges.
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Autofocus/category-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NA&ccode=9&cc=3173&r=WG&f