Sigma 70-200mm f2.8
- Thread starter Tey
- Start date
- Status
For Sigma, price would be around 1300$ in grey and 1500$ for regular one. Nikon goes for around 1650$ regular
Sigma has very good contrast and sharpness. Very nice bokeh. Build quality is pretty good. Weight is manageable, though a monopod/tripod will be called for in anything less than good light.
Difference with Nikon 80-200mm AFD will be mostly subjective. Nikkor has slightly better build, image quality is almost thereabout and its a bit slower in focussing (Sigma has HSM). Nikkor should have better resale value, though the Sigma also holds its value pretty well (as I found out)
If you can get hold of a second hand one like I did, then you should be happy. Get either of these which is available cheaper. Both of these are excellent lenses, and wont constrain you from taking excellent pictures. Its upto you to make the best use of the one you decide to get.
Sigma has very good contrast and sharpness. Very nice bokeh. Build quality is pretty good. Weight is manageable, though a monopod/tripod will be called for in anything less than good light.
Difference with Nikon 80-200mm AFD will be mostly subjective. Nikkor has slightly better build, image quality is almost thereabout and its a bit slower in focussing (Sigma has HSM). Nikkor should have better resale value, though the Sigma also holds its value pretty well (as I found out)
If you can get hold of a second hand one like I did, then you should be happy. Get either of these which is available cheaper. Both of these are excellent lenses, and wont constrain you from taking excellent pictures. Its upto you to make the best use of the one you decide to get.
most of my birding pics are taken using a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. its good under good lighting conditions. but if the lighting is not has good, the focussing tends to hunt quite alot.
and when stacked with a TC like 1.4x or 2X, the image can be sometimes soft. sometimes its sharp.
theres no VR, and the colours in terms of contrast. IMHO, it loses to nikon. tats for sure. i have tested a 70-200 HSM and a VR lens side by side. the HSM is faster den the VR by a tad, while the colours, the nikon is so much better.
i have a picture taken using a 70-200 f/2.8 stacked with a sigma 2X. the colours are acceptable under such conditions. but this pic was taken in the early afternoon sun, where theres huge amt of sunlight.
So prolly you might want to invest in a Nikon rather then a Sigma.
and when stacked with a TC like 1.4x or 2X, the image can be sometimes soft. sometimes its sharp.
theres no VR, and the colours in terms of contrast. IMHO, it loses to nikon. tats for sure. i have tested a 70-200 HSM and a VR lens side by side. the HSM is faster den the VR by a tad, while the colours, the nikon is so much better.
i have a picture taken using a 70-200 f/2.8 stacked with a sigma 2X. the colours are acceptable under such conditions. but this pic was taken in the early afternoon sun, where theres huge amt of sunlight.
So prolly you might want to invest in a Nikon rather then a Sigma.
mostly mentioned in the same breath as the EF70-200mm f/2.8 L in hterms of optical performance. That's how good it is.
Optically, it has lower contrast than a nikkor but resolution is pretty close if you have a good copy. It performs well at f2.8 and reaches max sharpness at about f4. On lower end bodies like D70/D100 it focuses faster and better than a 2 touch because of its HSM. Focus speed is equivalent to the nikkor AFS versions with a greater tendency to micro-hunt which somewhat affects its tracking ability in comparison.
Some things you need to note are to check the copy of your lens properly before purchase as I've met people who claimed that they had received bad copies. Mine was soft when used on subjects <5m, not sure if it was representative of its performance.
It is a good purchase if you can find one 2nd hand for <900. Else you might want to consider a 2-touch nikkor instead.
Some things you need to note are to check the copy of your lens properly before purchase as I've met people who claimed that they had received bad copies. Mine was soft when used on subjects <5m, not sure if it was representative of its performance.
It is a good purchase if you can find one 2nd hand for <900. Else you might want to consider a 2-touch nikkor instead.
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with warranty in MS is around $1450. There's a price increase for this model recently.
Tey said:
of course AFD is 'slower' than ur kit lens, which is AF-s. dats where the extra money is going to, if u buy a AF-s 80-200.
MS, i believe mohgui is referring to MS Colour in AMK.
i'd even pick a push pull AFd 80-200 f2.8 in crap condition over the sigma. Simply put, optically, and built, the sigma is just not there. Consistency is a problem sigma really ought to deal with if they want to be more competitive.
- Status
Similar threads
