Seeking advise on 70-200 lens

[MeMyselfAndI]

Hi all, I've started birding since last year with a AF-S 300mm F4 and D7K body, so far I'm happy with the output.

Right now I'm thinking to get a 70-200 either VR I or Sigma 70-200 OS (sold a Sigma HSM II last time) for those nearer shot, sometime 300mm is too tight lol, and maybe some portrait shoot.

I've done review for both lens, both are ok to me, I'm not really fussy about IQ (so long it's decently sharp at 2.8)

So right now my question is;

Is it worth it to get a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR I or Sigma 70-200 OS from BnS

I can see that 70-200 VR I is still selling around 1.5-1.7 and Sigma is around 1100-1250 so is it really worth it?

1 of my worry is I believe those Nikon70-200 vr I in BnS should have at least 3-4years old if not higher, I'm just afraid that the VR or SWM will fail me and it will cost a bomb to fix it (Anyone had any experience on this?)

And lastly do you think the Selling Price in BnS is good? (you can skip this if you mind sharing)

And I know the VR II is the best (but not consider in getting it as I might not use this much)

Thank you so much for your time.

 

[daredevil123]

Don't think you can go wrong with either one. Prices you listed are fair. Worth it or not really depends on you.

 

[daredevil123]

Hi Thanks for your reply, I've found a good deal on Nikon 70-200 VR I, at 14xx 1 thing that worry me is the SWM and VR now , I know even new 1 had it risk. but just wondering how's the VR and SWM inside 70-200 can last.. anyone replace it before? (roughly how long of usage b4 it's dead)

And I saw online grey set for Sigma 70-200 os selling at 13xx (saw 1 at bns selling 1200) ~.~. only 10% save..

There is no pattern to gear failure actually.

 

[PinkDevil]

I personally thinks that unless the BnS is really a bargain which even then I would not buy for lens of these range because even if they are cheaper, its still not like a couple of hundreds. I prefer to save up and buy new one. You never know if the user dropped their lens before etc. I would rather buy grey new then second hand from BnS for lens unless you really know how to test and check the lens. Just my personal opinion.

 

[luckyorange]

There is no pattern to gear failure actually.

lol, i posted wrongly x.x opps sorry, just that i'm having the same problem too. sian. haha

 

[Light Machinery]

Well, as daredevil mentioned there isn't really a pattern to lens failure rate.

I have bought used bodies & lenses most of the time. Just take care in checking & testing during the purchase.

Just don't buy cheap, beat up lenses that are well used & generally you will be fine.

 

[MeMyselfAndI]

Don't think you can go wrong with either one. Prices you listed are fair. Worth it or not really depends on you.

Thanks for your reply, will think about it. Haha

 

[MeMyselfAndI]

I personally thinks that unless the BnS is really a bargain which even then I would not buy for lens of these range because even if they are cheaper, its still not like a couple of hundreds. I prefer to save up and buy new one. You never know if the user dropped their lens before etc. I would rather buy grey new then second hand from BnS for lens unless you really know how to test and check the lens. Just my personal opinion.

Yup, like the sigma 70-200 os I can just too up another 1xx for a brand new grey se.

 

[Kenneth Chen]

When come to Nikon lens I prefer original Nikon as they are the professional in their field with many years of research and technology. They started with building submarine telescope & binoculars for the Japanese Navy during the second world ward during the Korean War a correspondence / journalist told a shot high above the sky is was just a dot and when they below it up to few hundred times they was amaze to find out that it turn out to be a helicopter and later it was chosen by NASA as the first camera to be use in outer space. That history of Nikon lens.

 

[Rashkae]

When come to Nikon lens I prefer original Nikon as they are the professional in their field with many years of research and technology. They started with building submarine telescope & binoculars for the Japanese Navy during the second world ward during the Korean War a correspondence / journalist told a shot high above the sky is was just a dot and when they below it up to few hundred times they was amaze to find out that it turn out to be a helicopter and later it was chosen by NASA as the first camera to be use in outer space. That history of Nikon lens.

All lens manufacturers have interesting stories to tell. But building periscopes for submarines has nothing to do with a 70-200mm lens. The Sigma is also an excellent lens, don't let old historical fairy tales influence your decision on buying modern lenses.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

All lens manufacturers have interesting stories to tell. But building periscopes for submarines has nothing to do with a 70-200mm lens. The Sigma is also an excellent lens, don't let old historical fairy tales influence your decision on buying modern lenses.

But do consider that Sigma has excellent lenses that one needs to test 3-4 copies to find one that focuses correctly and the need to calibrate each time you update your camera. Even if submarine has nothing to do with cameras, although scopes that are not accurate would be rather useless in subs and planes.

Re calibration after warranty costs $150 each time.

I enjoyed my one Sigma lens but since we change cameras every few years my feeling for Sigma has deteriorated rapidly.

Imho go with Nikon. Don't save now and regret later.

 

[Kenneth Chen]

What I am trying to said is that the history of Nikon during WWII they build periscope for submarine, the lens are precisions made & accurate & sharp that's how they got their experience. After the war their factory are redundant they start with building professional lens & camera and later they want to expand their market share they enter into consumer mass market which was dominate by Canon at that time Canon was the market leader for consumer market, since Nikon enter this sector directly competing with Canon and Canon have no choice but to fight back by building professional lens & camera to compete with Nikon that's how it all started.

 

[daredevil123]

What I am trying to said is that the history of Nikon during WWII they build periscope for submarine, the lens are precisions made & accurate & sharp that's how they got their experience. After the war their factory are redundant they start with building professional lens & camera and later they want to expand their market share they enter into consumer mass market which was dominate by Canon at that time Canon was the market leader for consumer market, since Nikon enter this sector directly competing with Canon and Canon have no choice but to fight back by building professional lens & camera to compete with Nikon that's how it all started.

There are many examples of long standing companies that build excellent products, as well as crappy products. I think history in building products for world wars have no correlation whatsoever to how good their products are built nowadays. This is especially true when people move around so much, and experience moves around with these people.

And please get history right. Nikon started out by manufacturing lenses for Canon... Please at least understand the actual history of Nikon.

 

[Gnabster]

I am also looking at 70-200 focal length.

Went to test the 70-200 F4 at the Nikon Molest session organized by Clubsnap earlier this year (or was it last year) cant remember.
And i tested Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS, and also the legendary Nikon 70-200 F2.8 G. (This was not the Nikon molest session, test with friend's rig)

I have to say, depending on your personal preference, i am definitely saving for the Nikon 70-200 F2.8G , i don't mind it is heavier and bulky. The only thing stopping me is the cost. But i gonna say the performance is really fast, AF is good as well.

If you are shooting F5.6 most of the time , 70-200 F4 Nikon is good enough. But usually i like to shoot F4 , the F4 70-200 have good IQ, but the F2.8 version is really a lot better when you shoot both of them a period of time. You can notice the difference. The money $$$ is also a difference.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

I am also looking at 70-200 focal length.

Went to test the 70-200 F4 at the Nikon Molest session organized by Clubsnap earlier this year (or was it last year) cant remember.
And i tested Sigma 70-200 F2.8 OS, and also the legendary Nikon 70-200 F2.8 G. (This was not the Nikon molest session, test with friend's rig)

I have to say, depending on your personal preference, i am definitely saving for the Nikon 70-200 F2.8G , i don't mind it is heavier and bulky. The only thing stopping me is the cost. But i gonna say the performance is really fast, AF is good as well.

If you are shooting F5.6 most of the time , 70-200 F4 Nikon is good enough. But usually i like to shoot F4 , the F4 70-200 have good IQ, but the F2.8 version is really a lot better when you shoot both of them a period of time. You can notice the difference. The money $$$ is also a difference.

Agree with the analysis. Borrowed the Nikon f2.8 vr ii version and love the feel and speed. Currently using AFD 80-200 f2.8. Still thinking if I will get the f4 or f2.8.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

There are many examples of long standing companies that build excellent products, as well as crappy products. I think history in building products for world wars have no correlation whatsoever to how good their products are built nowadays. This is especially true when people move around so much, and experience moves around with these people.

And please get history right. Nikon started out by manufacturing lenses for Canon... Please at least understand the actual history of Nikon.

But historically Nikon catered for pro earlier than Canon. From before 1959, Canon started catering for pro in early 1970s.

 

[Kenneth Chen]

My Apologies I cause some confusion here.

History

Nikon Corporation was established on 25 July 1917 when three leading optical manufacturers merged to form a comprehensive, fully integrated optical company known as Nippon Kōgaku Tōkyō K.K. Over the next sixty years, this growing company became a manufacturer of optical lenses (including those for the first Canon cameras) and equipment used in cameras, binoculars, microscopes and inspection equipment. During World War II the company grew to nineteen factories and 23,000 employees, supplying items such as binoculars, lenses, bomb sights, and periscopes to the Japanese military.
Reception outside Japan
After the war Nippon Kōgaku reverted to producing its civilian product range in a single factory. In 1948, the first Nikon-branded camera was released, the Nikon I.[5] Nikon lenses were popularised by the American photojournalist David Douglas Duncan. Duncan was working in Tokyo when the Korean War began. Duncan had met a young Japanese photographer, Jun Miki, who introduced Duncan to Nikon lenses. From July 1950 to January 1951, Duncan covered the Korean War.[6] Fitting Nikon optics (especially the NIKKOR-P.C 1:2 f=8,5cm)[7] to his Leica rangefinder cameras produced high contrast negatives with very sharp resolution at the centre field.[8]

 

[Rashkae]

My Apologies I cause some confusion here.

History

Nikon Corporation was established on 25 July 1917 when three leading optical manufacturers merged to form a comprehensive, fully integrated optical company known as Nippon Kōgaku Tōkyō K.K. Over the next sixty years, this growing company became a manufacturer of optical lenses (including those for the first Canon cameras) and equipment used in cameras, binoculars, microscopes and inspection equipment. During World War II the company grew to nineteen factories and 23,000 employees, supplying items such as binoculars, lenses, bomb sights, and periscopes to the Japanese military.
Reception outside Japan
After the war Nippon Kōgaku reverted to producing its civilian product range in a single factory. In 1948, the first Nikon-branded camera was released, the Nikon I.[5] Nikon lenses were popularised by the American photojournalist David Douglas Duncan. Duncan was working in Tokyo when the Korean War began. Duncan had met a young Japanese photographer, Jun Miki, who introduced Duncan to Nikon lenses. From July 1950 to January 1951, Duncan covered the Korean War.[6] Fitting Nikon optics (especially the NIKKOR-P.C 1:2 f=8,5cm)[7] to his Leica rangefinder cameras produced high contrast negatives with very sharp resolution at the centre field.[8]

....so all you did was copy-paste from Wikipedia...

Again, building periscopes, binoculars, etc, has zero relevance to modern dslr lenses. And FYI, the precision of those ww2 items were not of a high degree or perfection. They were cheap and mass-manufactured and failed often.

 

[diediealsomustdive]

....so all you did was copy-paste from Wikipedia...

Again, building periscopes, binoculars, etc, has zero relevance to modern dslr lenses. And FYI, the precision of those ww2 items were not of a high degree or perfection. They were cheap and mass-manufactured and failed often.

How about the quality issues with respect to sigma? Peeling, inability to focus correctly except for sharp copy, and after changing cameras?

"They are cheap and mass-manufactured and failed often". Soon forgotten. How many sigma lenses will we remember in years to come?

 

[MacroMarlin]

All lens manufacturers have interesting stories to tell. But building periscopes for submarines has nothing to do with a 70-200mm lens. The Sigma is also an excellent lens, don't let old historical fairy tales influence your decision on buying modern lenses.

Agree with Rashkae, the periscopes and cams used in NASA space programmes, like the F3, are not normal off the production line models, but highly modified for marine or space travel with zero gravity. Moreover, the teams in these projects are different from the teams designing consumer products.