DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 vs. ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/05/2006 10:10:19 AM · #1
Hey all,
I'm in the market for a 2.8 tele, and originally I thought it was a no-brainer to go wtih the Nikon AF-S VR 70-200 f/2.8. However, before dropping $1600 I did some due diligence, and am now seriously considering the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

The reviews of it are almost universally positive and now I really don't think that the Nikon is worth twice the price (Yeah, the Nikon has VR, but I don't see myself needing it). For the difference in price, I can pick up an Epson 2400! That's gotta be worth something!

I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and I am stunned by it's quality--very sharp wide open at 1.4, fast focusing, etc. This lens has given me a new respect for Sigma.

So, does anyone own the Sigma 70-200? Has anyone compared the image quality with either the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L or the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8? What are your thoughts on the sharpness wide open (I will be using this almost exclusively at 2.8) and its focusing speed?

Thanks!

05/05/2006 10:18:26 AM · #2
Buy it, i don't have but i think it is very good lens
about quality you can say maybe Canon can take 10 or 9 points and nikon can take 10 or 9 points maybe and i think Sigma can take 8 or 7 points, so it is very similar quality. just if you care of the highest quality then go for Canon or Nikon, if the highest quality is not a matter then keep sigma and buy something else beside will worth it.
Just my advice is to check alot of websites about lens Sigma 70-200 and see the reviews and sample images and then decide.
Good luck

Message edited by author 2006-05-05 10:19:23.
 05/05/2006 10:22:32 AM · #3
I've not tried the Canon or Nikon (or Minolta), but I'm very happy with my Sigma 70-200mm, which I use pretty much exclusively wide open. The sharpness is not far off my Sigma 105mm macro.
 05/05/2006 10:22:36 AM · #4
I'd like to know the same thing. I've been watching that lens for awhile, thinking that it seems to be a good value. I have done a lot of background research as well and find excellent reviews...but can't seem to find a lot of info from "real" users.

I can't afford either right now, but I figure it's never too early to start considering what's next!
 05/05/2006 10:25:47 AM · #5
I just played with the sigma on a nikon. It was really solid, accurate, and sharp. That's about all I know about it, as I only used it for about an hour. and, it comes with a collar...
 05/05/2006 10:28:48 AM · #6
I often suggest this on this forum, but a Sigma 70-200mm with a Minolta 5D (image stabilising) is cheaper than a Canon/Nikon 70-200mm IS/VR on it's own. Of course, you have to put your faith in what Sony will do with the format, but it's always an option. I'm very happy with a stabilised Sigma 70-200mm.
 05/05/2006 10:36:12 AM · #7
It really comes down to YOU, what do you want ? Nikkon or Sigma VR or no VR, you should go to the camera store and take the exact same shot with both lenses, on a tripod and off the tripod with VR ON and No VR take them home and see for your self,
then you want to look toward the future, im not sure about Nikkon, But Canon L glass, doesnt really depreciate that much, i cold sell both my L lenses right know and get pretty damm close what i payed for them,

Its all up to you, our views are what we have to offer
 05/05/2006 10:41:51 AM · #8
I was all set to buy that Sigma lens when I made the mistake of taking test photos using it, and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8. Although the Sigma took great photos, I could tell the difference when comparing it to the Canon lens. I'm really on the fence now. I always try to buy the best so that I can't blame the equipment for my failures, but Canon lenses are a lot more money.

I would suggest taking your camera to the local camera store and taking photos with both lenses. I'm sure the store would let you. Take the pics home and study them. Make your decision on what you see, and on what compromises you're willing to make.
 05/05/2006 10:43:47 AM · #9
Here is the Sigma MTF chart


How to read an MTF Chart

I can NOT find the nikon MTF chart maybe someone out there does.
but we can use the Canon version, becaue canon and nikon are pretty close probably



Message edited by author 2006-05-05 10:53:11.
 05/05/2006 11:48:29 AM · #10
here is a link to the Nikon 18-200 VR Chart.
However...I'm not sure you compare this lens with the other 2 you are speaking about.

[quote=TroyMosley] Here is the Sigma MTF chart


How to read an MTF Chart

I can NOT find the nikon MTF chart maybe someone out there does.
but we can use the Canon version, becaue canon and nikon are pretty close probably



Message edited by author 2006-05-05 12:05:27.
 05/05/2006 12:16:22 PM · #11
Photozone doesn't seem to have much on the Nikon versions, but the do have a review of the Sigma in the Canon mount.

//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
 05/05/2006 12:29:38 PM · #12
Great lens. I had one for about a year and a half. The only issue with sigma is compatibility with future bodies. they can be rechipped but it's a pain, so I bought the canon version but that is the ONLY reason I did it. The lens is wonderfully sharp and contrasty. Many Canon pundits will say different but I've shot with both and looking back now I can't remember or tell which was shot with the Canon or the Sigma...

This one I do know was shot with the sigma...

//www.davenitsche.com/martini.htm
 05/05/2006 01:40:01 PM · #13
I have the Sigma 70-200 and am very pleased with it. I find myself using it a lot more than I expected I would before I bought it. And I use it wide open for low light stuff a lot of the time. I haven't used a Canon or Nikon 70-200 but I do have two other Canon L lenses, and the Sigma hangs right in there with them for sharpness at wide aperture, focusing speed and, indeed overall image and build quality.

Check out these shots:Sigma 70-200 on Canon bodies

If you're sure that you're not interested in VR, then save some money and get the Sigma.
 05/18/2006 06:44:29 PM · #14
Can't get into details now, but IF negotiations work out, I will need a fast tele with superb quality for 20x30's. Also under this big IF is a 20d. Budget seems to be pretty tight.

I have been considering both the sigma and canon 70-200 2.8 (non-IS in the case of canon). I know the sigma comes with a tripod collar, does the canon? How does HSM compare to USM? Would anyone consider the sigma zoom ring (which appears to be opposite typical canon style) to be a problem? I have not used either of these two lenses, though I have used the canon IS version.

Thank you if you answer even one of my many questions,
luke

edit for grammar

Message edited by author 2006-05-18 18:45:20.
 05/18/2006 07:04:14 PM · #15
I have the Sigma 70-200, it's a fine lens. If not equal to the Canon 70-200 non-IS it is so nearly equal that most photographers won't tell the difference. The included tripod collar is shorter than you'd like and can make turning the zoom ring difficult if you're handholding the lens by the collar. It's a minor shortcoming in my mind, you can turn it around, or just take it off when not using a tripod or monopod. But if it bothers you there is an optional larger one that sells for $150. Even with that added cost you still save $150 over the Canon. Some people say it has a crummy lens cap but I've had no problem there.
05/18/2006 07:11:10 PM · #16
Hey Zal,
I have both lenes and I must admit, Sigma is quite nice. Although my Sigma is newer than my Nikon, the Sigma is faster and much more quiet. As far as quality, you can't see the difference until you really start to zoom in. And even then pixelation begins about the same time. Colors on both lenses are amazing. If I were you I would save the money and go with Sigma. Resale you'll lose a little but the 70-200 is a lens you usually don't sell. Good luck and I hope my 1 cent helped.
 05/18/2006 07:11:48 PM · #17
Have you considered the Nikon 80-200mm lens. It is only a hair more expensive than the Sigma and it is built like a tank and has nothing but great reviews. I was considering the Sigma lens too, but after lots and lots of reading and talking to people, I settled on the 80-200mm Nikon because of how sharp it is and for the resale value of it. If I ever wanted to sell it (which I don't) I could probably get pretty close to what I paid for it (since I bought it used as well). Anyway, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR would be awesome, but for half the price you can get the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 and I am willing to bet the optics are just as good. Good luck.

-Jeremy
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/25/2025 01:18:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 09/25/2025 01:18:07 AM EDT.