I am looking to get a new lens 70-200mm and was just wondering if anyone has any feedback on either of the following. Aside price ~ is there much difference? I have read and read reviews and still can't make my mind up.
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM ~ £759
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor - £1579
OR
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED ~ £629 [I hired this lens back in the summer and loved it, but it doesn;t AF on the D5100.]
@alisonp Hi Alison. Yes, technically speaking, the Sigma lens is lesser quality than the Nikon lens. So says DxOMark http://dxomark.com which is the source I've relied on in the past for lens info and comparison. When shopping for a 70-200 f/2.8, I went with a lens you don't have in your list - the Tamron lens. It's ratings on DxOMark are practically identical to the Nikon lens, but for about 30% cheaper. I've been extremely pleased with it.
The Sigma lens I have rented. It has significant (unexpected and unpleasant) lens distortion and of course very heavy like the Nikkor. I didn't particularly like it. I do own the f/4 70-200 Nikkor, and for half the price and half the weight of the f/2.8, I can live without the extra stop. If you consider this lens, you don't need the (additional) tripod collar. The optics are superb, and like the big brother doesn't extend as you zoom.
I'm very sad that I just sold my 70-200 that you are looking at, as it would have been so inexpensive for you!! I sold it as I found it too heavy to use as a walk-around lens, and I had the much lighter weight 70-300 and would inevitably choose that instead, despite the fact that the glass is not nearly as good. In the end, I sold several of my lenses in exchange for a 28-300 3.5/5.6 Nikon to use as a walk-about lens. If you're thinking of either, weight to me would be the main issue. The 70-200 is supposed to be one of Nikon's best lenses, but since it mostly sat on a shelf, after four years, I decided it was not for me. Have you tested these at all?
@taffy That 28-300 is great. I have it on my D7100 all the time. It must be even better on the full frame camera, with 28 being a proper 28. I find I seldom mount the 70-200 f/4 now that I have it. It cleans up beautifully at all lengths in Photoshop/Lightroom, especially the little bit of barrel distortion at the wide end.
My personal experience with Nikon Vs. Sigma lenses came a long time ago. I own a Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and the newspaper I was working for bought Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 lenses for our company supplied kits. The sigma lens was really sharp and had great color and contrast. But, after a month of daily use the Sigma was not performing as well anymore. The lens had more plastic parts and the focus was not as sharp or accurate as when we first got it. If you are very careful with your gear them it might be okay. But for a daily use lens I have only liked Nikon and Tokina lenses. They hold up to the abuse.
@jeffjones thank you ~ I have 2 Tokina lenses and love them both, but I couldn't see that they did the one I am looking for, if they did that would of been a no brainer for me
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have only trialed the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED and although heavy I loved it