# Worth it to pick up a Sigma 70-200?



## Live_free (Mar 9, 2011)

Hey guys, long time so see. Anyway I was wondering if I should pick up a sigma 70-200 2.8 before it becomes 150 dollars more. 

What I have now.

-D90
-18-105 "kit"
-SB-600
-35 and 50 1.8


Thanks. :3


EDIT: If anyone could chime in on the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR vs Sigma 70-200 HSM II (Non OS version) that would be great. Or should I just save up and get an awesome lens?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 9, 2011)

Considering you can buy a used Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRI for less, I would have to say no; not to me at least.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 9, 2011)

Aren't those not as quick to focus though? I'd like to use it for sports. But thanks for the input, will look into it.


----------



## pdq5oh (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't think you'll find the Sigma will focus any faster. The IQ of the Nikon is much better. As is the build quality.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 9, 2011)

The used Nikon will beat the Sigma hands down in build-quality, image-quality and focusing speed.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 9, 2011)

Any good place to pick up a used VR1?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 9, 2011)

Found mine on Craig's List.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 10, 2011)

Yeah I checked there, no dice. I will look around for a bit but soon this sigma will be 950 bucks so I will have to buy if I cannot find a VR1.


----------



## photogir2002 (Mar 10, 2011)

I have a 70-200 but it is a 4 to 5.6 (was cheap and just wanted to get an idea if I needed a zoom like that). Anyhow, I really love it and it was great for sports. Image stabilizer, etc. I have to say the 2.8 would be even better? but with the price, yeah, maybe you should keep looking.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 10, 2011)

Live_free said:


> Yeah I checked there, no dice. I will look around for a bit but soon this sigma will be *950 bucks* so I will have to buy if I cannot find a VR1.


   Sigma's website lists it at $2400; is there that much of a difference between their MSRP and actual over the counter prices?  If so, disregard my previous recommendation.  You won't touch a Nikkor model for under $1000; probably more more like $1200 - 1400.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 10, 2011)

The sigma is only 800 now and will be around 950 in a few weeks. Sharpness worth the extra money?


----------



## ghache (Mar 10, 2011)

they say the vrII is about 20% sharper. but 120% more expensive. make your choice.


----------



## kylehess10 (Mar 10, 2011)

The 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma lens is an AMAZING LENS!!!! 

I paid $450 for mine off eBay and I never regret that purchase. I used it at Turner Field in 2010. The quality was so great, that I actually received numerous request for prints from the players themselves. They loved the quality too apparently 

Here's some examples of my pics taken with the 70-200:





























The only thing I don't suggest is getting a teleconverter with it. I bought the Sigma 1.4x teleconverter when I had this lens and it downgrades the sharpness severely.


----------



## ghache (Mar 10, 2011)

kylehess10 said:


> The 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma lens is an AMAZING LENS!!!!
> 
> I paid $450 for mine off eBay and I never regret that purchase. I used it at Turner Field in 2010. The quality was so great, that I actually received numerous request for prints from the players themselves. They loved the quality too apparently
> 
> ...




love the shots, 

i am actually putting my hands on a used one this weekend. seller is letting me use it for the weekend. if its a sharp copy i might buy it.


----------



## edwardmendes (Mar 10, 2011)

I'm pretty iffy with Sigma lens.  While I haven't used the 70-200mm I have owned two other sigma lens and I've given them both away, they just weren't sharp.  Based on my experience with both Sigma and Nikon I'd favor the Nikon every time.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 10, 2011)

edwardmendes said:


> I'm pretty iffy with Sigma lens. While I haven't used the 70-200mm I have owned two other sigma lens and I've given them both away, they just weren't sharp. Based on my experience with both Sigma and Nikon *I'd favor the Nikon every time.*


 
Agree; the only Sigma I really want to play with is the 300-800 f5.6.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Mar 10, 2011)

Live_free said:


> I was wondering if I should pick up a sigma 70-200 2.8



Sure you should pick it up, as long as you put it down soon after and go look at the Nikon Version..........


----------



## KmH (Mar 10, 2011)

I've only owned one version of a Sigma lens, and it was a daytime field sports lens. I had 2 of the APO 150-500 mm f/5-6.3 OS zooms and for $999 new at that time, thought they were a great deal.

They have gone up a little in price Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 

Both have now been replaced by 2 good used copies of the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G AF-S SWM SIC ED IF VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras I was able to get for a good price.


----------



## AtlPikMan (Mar 10, 2011)

The Nikon Versions are better than the Sigma, Tokina or any other 3rd party lens. Will YOU be able to tell the difference...probably not. Will anyone be able to look at your shots and tell...If they are well focused, I doubt it. If you can patiently save and wait it out for a VR 1 by all means so, If not get the Sigma...You can always sell it and put the money towards the Nikon if you choose.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 10, 2011)

My only problem with the nikkor model is that it is twice as much money, for slightly better sharpness.


----------



## AtlPikMan (Mar 10, 2011)

Live_free said:


> My only problem with the nikkor model is that it is twice as much money, for slightly better sharpness.


 
Then that answers the question...Go for the Sigma, Im sure you'll be happy with it/ On another note I added you on Flikr.


----------



## sierramister (Mar 10, 2011)

The Sigma is great.  I have the 70-200 f/2.8 HSM II (non-OS), and it produces great images, little tone shifting, and is quick to focus.  I paid $600 used for it, and it was basically untouched.

I figure there are enough people buying D3100's that I'll be able to sell it when I'm ready to upgrade to the the VRII Nikon version and not lose any money.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 10, 2011)

I will look to buy the Sigma then. Thanks guys. :3


----------



## pdq5oh (Mar 10, 2011)

Live_free said:


> My only problem with the nikkor model is that it is twice as much money, for slightly better sharpness.


 
Something someone mentioned when I was contemplating which 70-200 to buy. Focus accuracy, not just speed is important. And when the difference between a keeper and not, all things considered, the Nikon most likely will give you a higher keeper rate.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 14, 2011)

Thanks guys. I am going to place an order for the sigma tomorrow. Any last minute pieces of advice are always welcome.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 14, 2011)

Live_free said:


> .......... Any last minute pieces of advice are always welcome.



Yeah.... buy two and send me one.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 15, 2011)

I just ordered it. Should be here in a few days. Question to the pros out there, do you like using filters? Contemplating grabbing a polarizer for it. I have them for my other lenses, worth it to grab one for this lens too?


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 15, 2011)

tirediron said:


> Considering you can buy a used Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRI for less, I would have to say no; not to me at least.



Agree,

And you could also buy a used 80-200mm f2.8 af-d for $500 or less.  Which would be optically better then the sigma and even a little better then the 70-200mm VR1.  Just no VR and a bit slower focusing.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 15, 2011)

I bought a used Nikkor 70-200vr1 a few weeks ago and can honestly say it's very fast fast focus on my D300s. The IQ is awesome and the build feels exceptional. I haven't seen one sell for less than $1400 around these parts although I did pick up mine for $1350. 

As you've already ordered I hope the Sigma meets all your requirements. I'm happy I waited for the right deal and had saved up for the Nikkor....very much so.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 15, 2011)

I hate buying used, and I am only 16. So the extra 600-800 is something I cannot afford as I have no job right now. Especially after just dropping 5k of my own money on a custom rig. 

I can't wait for it to get here and play with it. Might pick up a polarizer if I deem it needed.


----------



## ghache (Mar 16, 2011)

Live_free said:


> I hate buying used, and I am only 16. So the extra 600-800 is something I cannot afford as I have no job right now. Especially after just dropping 5k of my own money on a custom rig.
> 
> I can't wait for it to get here and play with it. Might pick up a polarizer if I deem it needed.




a custom rig?


----------



## Live_free (Mar 16, 2011)

Computer.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 22, 2011)

I just received the lens. One question, how do I get the HSM motor to work? There is no switch on the nikon mount. Do I just turn on my in camera AF, isn't the HSM motor faster?


----------



## Stutterfly (Mar 22, 2011)

Er...mine's always just been - _on_. I didn't realise it could be off, If I'm honest. 

I assume just have it all flicked to AF and away you go.

oh - definitely pick up a polariser - or some kind of filter. Anything protective. I've seen a lens gets smashed and having a filter on saved it so that an extra $70 on a hoya filter never seems like a waste.


----------



## Propsguy (Mar 22, 2011)

I suffer from the Sigma stigma... I just don't trust them, which might be an outdated perspective because they have gotten better over the years, but It's something I just can't get over... It seems that front and back focussing issues are more prevalent than ever these days, particularily with 3rd party lenses, and I just don't have time to gamble on "getting a good copy" of a lens... the industry just can't work that way.

My vote would go for the Nikon VR1, especially if you plan on sticking with a crop sensor for a while.  Whichever way you choose, the best lenses are the ones you actually use, so the reality is that if it works for you, go for it and have fun...

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Propsguy (Mar 22, 2011)

Of course I just saw your previous thread response... 

Hey, Congrats on the new lens!... 

Paul


----------



## Live_free (Mar 22, 2011)

I have been testing it out and I asked about that problem, the manager at Allens Camera said he has sold over one thousand of these lenses and never had one returned due to a front focus / back focus problem. Mine seems to be just fine. Anything I can do to make sure?


----------



## Propsguy (Mar 22, 2011)

Well, pixel peeping will start to drive you crazy... It's very easy to magnify something many times on a monitor and question the sharpness or focus accuracy... the reality is that if it works, then,well, it works.  Focus tests, in general terms and for non critical photography, don't make a lot of sense... if it looks good when it's printed, you're golden...


----------



## Live_free (Mar 22, 2011)

I don't pixel peep, mainly because it is not what the client would see I don't care. If it works and it looks good I am in shape.


----------



## Stryker (Mar 23, 2011)

Read the review of the Nikkor 70-200 here:  Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR - Review / Test Report

The Sigma 70-200 here:  Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO macro (Nikon) - Review / Test Report

then make your decision...


----------



## behanana (Mar 25, 2011)

Thanks to everyone here for the input on the 3rd party lenses v. Nikon lenses. I was going to post a question about this topic, more general than the specific lense, but you all have taken care of that for me.


----------



## sierramister (Mar 25, 2011)

The OP said they were interested in getting the HSM II version of the 70-200 Sigma, and the review is of the first version.  In my opinion, I tried both the I and II Sigma, and the II is much sharper at 2.8 and has faster AF.


----------



## Live_free (Mar 25, 2011)

I went over to my high school today to shoot a baseball game. Just to start to learn the new lens, and style of shooting. I have never shot sports before, so this was very new to me. I am not asking for CC as I know what is wrong in the pictures, feet cut off, I need to get better at focusing with the lens, etc.

I did learn something though, if you are walking around acting like you are supposed to be there with a 1 foot lens no one ever asks any questions, all access pass. 

I also wanted to see how sharp of a copy I got. What do you guys think? Most of these were shot at f2.8. Not sure which ones though and don't really want to look now, maybe later. :greenpbl:


----------



## kasperjd4 (Mar 26, 2011)

Looks good! Glad to see you like.

The HSM isn't an option you can turn on or off. It's just the style/name of the focus motor. 

I just ordered the 70-200 f2.8 EX DG OS HSM! I can't wait for it to get here!


----------

