Nikon v Sigma Lens thoughts (Page 2): This only applies to subjects that are stationary. If the subject is moving the only way to stop motion blur is with faster shutter speed and that...

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

speters wrote:

The Nikon is optically superior and the IS is rated 5-stops - that will make it just as fast (actually faster) than the Sig. Also, the Nikon has nice AF, the Sig does'nt.

This only applies to subjects that are stationary. If the subject is moving the only way to stop motion blur is with faster shutter speed and that requires a faster lens or higher ISO. If you are shooting natural,light portraits VR is great but if you are shooting motocross at twilight, then not so much.

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

jerryc41 wrote:

This article is too long for me to read since I am not about to buy either. Nikon vs Nikon. (Spoiler alert: he prefers the Nikon. :D)

http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4-vs-f2-8

Now there's a man with a sense of humor! :)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Patw28 wrote:

Now there's a man with a sense of humor! :)

That's what keeps me going. :D

Gerylee Loc: Ontario, Canada

This is the same problem I had for ages. Finally, my husband suggested I look at it this way....estimate how many years you intent to own the lens. Then divide the cost by those many years. Compare the yearly cost between the two. Knowing the price yearly price difference between the two and knowing what your heart's desire is...buy the one that you won't regret.

I bought the Nikon 70-200 f2.8

Canikon Guy Loc: Baltimore, MD

pdhitt wrote:

I am considering acquiring a new lens. I am looking at the new Nikon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I would consider the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but it is out of my price range right now.

As I am on the fence I welcome all thoughts.

Try this.
WAIT till you can afford the better lens, the Nikon 2.8.
I bought the Canon's version 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Love it, very sharp you will hurt yourself. :thumbup:
I'm not spending money on a crappy 3rd party lens, Sigma or Tamrom and others. I don't care what the "reviewers" say.
There is a reason why Canon and Nikon cost more, they are better. You get what you pay for.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For me it would be - Do you ever want to get to 400mm ? if yes, then you want the 2.8 with the ability to put a 2X behind it ! If you NEVER want to get to 400mm, or weght/bulk is an issue, then get the F4 ! If you get the 2.8, you will want to be on a monopod for the weight/ergonomics issue.

yardbyrd Loc: KCMO

Checkout the Nikon 80-200 2.8 at B&H or Adorama.

bersharbp Loc: Texas

Can't speak to the specifics of those lenses but I use a Nikon D7100 with a Sigma 18-250 and they're great!

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

pdhitt wrote:

I am considering acquiring a new lens. I am looking at the new Nikon 70-200 f4 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I would consider the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 but it is out of my price range right now.

As I am on the fence I welcome all thoughts.

Try and get a second hand Nikon 2.8 I have the VR11 version but if you could get the VR1 version at a good price you wont regret it. There is not much difference with the VR1 and VR2 apart from the VR2 having maybe one more stop of VR support. They both are in my views superior lenses although the VR11 is slightly heavier and bulkier.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Canikon Guy wrote:

Try this.
WAIT till you can afford the better lens, the Nikon 2.8.
I bought the Canon's version 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Love it, very sharp you will hurt yourself. :thumbup:
I'm not spending money on a crappy 3rd party lens, Sigma or Tamrom and others. I don't care what the "reviewers" say.
There is a reason why Canon and Nikon cost more, they are better. You get what you pay for.

You do pay more for those 2 names on any product and I don't care what you say. Exact or better quality by a 3rd party lens the Nikon/Canon will always cost more. Both Tamron and Sigma are producing lens now that are as good or better in some instances then their Nikon/Canon counterparts---of course you don't have to believe testing if you have deep pockets.........

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

coco1964 wrote:

You do pay more for those 2 names on any product and I don't care what you say. Exact or better quality by a 3rd party lens the Nikon/Canon will always cost more. Both Tamron and Sigma are producing lens now that are as good or better in some instances then their Nikon/Canon counterparts---of course you don't have to believe testing if you have deep pockets.........

Optically, maybe. Mechanically and structurally, maybe not.

Canikon Guy Loc: Baltimore, MD

coco1964 wrote:

You do pay more for those 2 names on any product and I don't care what you say. Exact or better quality by a 3rd party lens the Nikon/Canon will always cost more. Both Tamron and Sigma are producing lens now that are as good or better in some instances then their Nikon/Canon counterparts---of course you don't have to believe testing if you have deep pockets.........

You pay for research, development and quality.
If those two crappy lens companies would make a lens as good or better than Nikon or Canon, both Nikon and canon would be out of business.

"Testing" is the writers opinion. I make my own decisions.
I don't have deep pockets, but I'm not cheap and don't buy junk.

I don't care what you say too.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Canikon Guy wrote:

You pay for research, development and quality..

I agree.

Canikon Guy wrote:

If those two crappy lens companies would make a lens as good or better than Nikon or Canon, both Nikon and canon would be out of business........
.

Sounds good but its wrong, it's a throw away line that means nothing.
To draw one parallel out of so many available - in the 60s & 70s, Honda and Toyota were a bit of a joke.
Ford and GMH were king - they were the Canon and Nikon.
Well now Toyota and Honda are producing vehicles as good as, or better than Ford and GMH.
Ford and GMH have had a couple of stumbles but they are still in business.
Your sweeping statement doesn't wash.

Ahchu Loc: Northeast PA

I have the Sigma lens and love it. Here is a pic I took with it.

Ball 4

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This thread is going south ..... in a hurry !