| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2005 06:55:44 PM · #1 |
So I've been itching to get a good telephoto lens for a while now. I narrowed it down to two possibilities:
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ----------- 800$
Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR ------ 1600$
I hear both are excellent quality. But the advantage of the Nikkor is the VR which lowers camera shake by an equivalent 3 f-stops!!!
Is it a wise investement? or should I get the Sigma and invest the difference in other lenses?
Thanks for your help...
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 18:56:42. |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 06:58:44 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/31/2005 07:19:45 PM · #3 |
sounds like the same problem I had last year, the 70-200L f2.8 IS or the Sigma 70-200..
I went with the L ;)
you'll never regret spending money on the best, but you might regret going with the cheap option, the cheaper lenses are not as easy to sell used, and you'll loose a lot more reselling ;)
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 07:30:12 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
...you'll never regret spending money on the best, but you might regret going with the cheap option, the cheaper lenses are not as easy to sell used, and you'll loose a lot more reselling ;) |
Of course, if you buy the VR, you'll never sell :-P
Definitely the VR. I understand that ti is pretty much the equal of the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS, with which I am extremely impressed.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 07:33:22 PM · #5 |
I'll be going with the f/4L version.
Sheesh, wish my wallet was thicker!
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 04:57:42 PM · #6 |
Thanks for the info!
So I decided to get the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR.
Now, I was offered a 2.0x teleconverter to go with it... what are the differences amongst the 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x teleconverters other than the obvious change in focal length factor? |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 05:56:46 PM · #7 |
A 1.4x converter will lose you 1 stop, so you're at 98-280 f/4. A 2.0x loses you two stops, so max aperture becomes f/5.6. With the 2x, your linearly magnifying the image 2x, so the lens needs to resolve double what the sensor can if you're not to see image degration. As you can imagine, this is highly unlikely with a zoom unless stopped down.
I've found that with a 2.0x on my Canon 70-2000/2.8 that I need to stop down one to two stops to get close to the sharpness the sensor can resolve.
What I'd do in your shoes is go for the 1.4x, which will be useful in a much broader range of circumstances than the 2.0x.
Message edited by author 2005-09-06 17:57:27.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 06:03:50 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
A 1.4x converter will lose you 1 stop, so you're at 98-280 f/4. A 2.0x loses you two stops, so max aperture becomes f/5.6. With the 2x, your linearly magnifying the image 2x, so the lens needs to resolve double what the sensor can if you're not to see image degration. As you can imagine, this is highly unlikely with a zoom unless stopped down.
I've found that with a 2.0x on my Canon 70-2000/2.8 that I need to stop down one to two stops to get close to the sharpness the sensor can resolve.
What I'd do in your shoes is go for the 1.4x, which will be useful in a much broader range of circumstances than the 2.0x. |
That 70-2000/2.8 is a hell of a lens ain't it? Almost 300x zoom, whatta thrill...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 06:15:16 PM · #9 |
I have the Sigma EX lens, I enjoy using it, and it seems to work for me. I guess its what you can afford, and what works best for you. Try them both out and see which makes you happiest with the results.
Originally posted by labuda:
So I've been itching to get a good telephoto lens for a while now. I narrowed it down to two possibilities:
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ----------- 800$
Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR ------ 1600$
I hear both are excellent quality. But the advantage of the Nikkor is the VR which lowers camera shake by an equivalent 3 f-stops!!!
Is it a wise investement? or should I get the Sigma and invest the difference in other lenses?
Thanks for your help... |
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 03:25:36 PM · #10 |
I got the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED!!!!!
Can't wait to take advantage of it!
Thanks for the good advice. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 06:12:05 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by labuda:
Thanks for the info!
So I decided to get the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR.
Now, I was offered a 2.0x teleconverter to go with it... what are the differences amongst the 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x teleconverters other than the obvious change in focal length factor? |
Try to google about that, because my memory manages to bring up info from a while ago that says the 2x is noticeably soft.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/18/2025 11:59:29 PM EDT.
