# Sigma 2.8 70-200mm HSM lens



## KAikens318 (Jun 18, 2010)

I am seriously considering buying this lens 
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001044RIQ/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1276703301&sr=8-2&condition=used]Amazon.com: Used and New: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras[/ame]
since it is much cheaper than a Nikkor and I am on a limited budget. It looks really sweet but I wanted to see if any one in here has one and has any complaints about it? I am looking to use it mostly for sports shots. Example shots would be great too!!


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 18, 2010)

I haven't used this lens, but if it's like most sigma's it's likely a good deal "IF" you get a good version--they're quality control isn't as good as nikon.

Another $$ saving option you may consider is looking for a used 80-200mm f2.8 nikon, af or af-s.  I have the af version of this lens and love it, and I also recently aquired an af-s version in a auction bundle.  I'm presently deciding on which to sell.  The AF goes for around $500, wheras the af-s sells used for around $1000.


----------



## KAikens318 (Jun 18, 2010)

djacobox372 said:


> I haven't used this lens, but if it's like most sigma's it's likely a good deal "IF" you get a good version--they're quality control isn't as good as nikon.
> 
> Another $$ saving option you may consider is looking for a used 80-200mm f2.8 nikon, af or af-s. I have the af version of this lens and love it, and I also recently aquired an af-s version in a auction bundle. I'm presently deciding on which to sell. The AF goes for around $500, wheras the af-s sells used for around $1000.


 

I was looking into the Nikkor AF-S as well because I know those are the best for sports shots (I was hired to do a roller derby team shoot) and found in most reviews the HSM in the Sigma is comparable. Some even liked it better than the Nikkor itself. I have a Sigma lens, 70-300mm F4 and I absolutely love it. But I also have my 3 Nikkor lenses and I love those as well. I am torn, but my budget is urging me on to the Sigma.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 18, 2010)

KAikens318 said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't used this lens, but if it's like most sigma's it's likely a good deal "IF" you get a good version--they're quality control isn't as good as nikon.
> ...



Considering the savings, the sigma is an excellent lens.  My recommendation is to buy a new sigma, and save the warranty info... most likely any issues related to a lack of quality control will come up before the warranty is up.  

I own a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and I love it, but it replaced a sigma 24-60mm f2.8 which broke within 1 month of owning it, so I have mixed feelings on them.


----------



## Forest Power Ranger (Jun 18, 2010)

I have the sigma 70-200 and let me say I freaking love it. It is kinda hit or miss with the quality but I lucked out. I bought mine used on craigslist for $650 and it couldn't be any newer if got it from B&H! Very happy. I had the same dilemma you have when I was shopping around, but the only big difference is the VR and if you're shooting sports that won't matter at all. Here is a link to a thread I have with some pics i took with the lens. (note some pics I shot with a 2x teleconverter as well).        http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photojournalism-sports-gallery/207250-baseball-critique.html.   Hope this helps!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## table1349 (Jun 18, 2010)

Since I'm a Canon user I can only comment on the Canon version.  When the local shop got in their first copy the owner asked me to take it out and put it through it's paces.  I found it optically very sharp, nearly on par with the Canon version.  The AF speed was good.  Slightly slower than the Canon version but respectably fast.  Fast enough for action photography.  

The copy I tested is now being used by a sports photographer and he is quite happy with the lens.  Like I said, that was the Canon version, but hopefully it will help a bit.


----------



## JohnnyL (Jun 23, 2010)

I haven't had any experience on any of these lenses but I have seen on this forum people with broken sigma lens of this same model. Personally , if I'm already spending this much money , I'll just save a little more and buy the best. Maybe you can check out Kenrockwell.com and look up the nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens. I think it's about the same price as the Sigma.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 23, 2010)

JohnnyL said:


> I haven't had any experience on any of these lenses but I have seen on this forum people with broken sigma lens of this same model. Personally , if I'm already spending this much money , I'll just save a little more and buy the best. Maybe you can check out Kenrockwell.com and look up the nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens. I think it's about the same price as the Sigma.



The AF version of the 80-200mm is about the same price as the sigma hsm (used), the AF-S 80-200mm costs about $1000 (used).


----------



## TJ K (Jun 26, 2010)

I love this lens! I use it on my D90. 
Here are some sample shots:












And to show the macro-ish side of it:





TJ


----------



## smyth (Jun 29, 2010)

Nikon still sells (or at the very least, there are still new copies floating around in stores) the AF 80-200 f2.8D ED and the price is comparable to the Sigma. The lens is very sharp, and focuses pretty damn fast on my D90, more than fast enough for sports. 

For example:


----------



## TJ K (Jun 30, 2010)

The sigma is one of the fastest focusing 70-200s out there. Some might say it's faster than the nikon version. The nikon 80-200 is good but not as fast by any means and still is quite old. Now if you want it for something other than sports go with the nikon. If not the sigma is amazing.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 2, 2010)

TJ K said:


> The sigma is one of the fastest focusing 70-200s out there. Some might say it's faster than the nikon version. The nikon 80-200 is good but not as fast by any means and still is quite old. Now if you want it for something other than sports go with the nikon. If not the sigma is amazing.



Does the sigma focus significantly faster then the af-s version of the 80-200mm?  

Basically what i see here are three choices:


$500 Nikon AF 80-200mm = great optics, great build quality, great resale value, slow autofocus

$700 Sigma 70-200mm = great optics (if you get a good version), okay build quality, okay resale, fastest autofocus

$1000 Nikon AF-S 80-200mm = great optics, great build quality, great resale value, fast autofocus, but reportedly not quite as fast as the sigma.


----------



## ghache (Jul 2, 2010)

i am also considering the sigma 70-200,

i plan on renting them first.

next weekend i am renting the 24-70 af-s and the 70-200 VRii to see witch one would fit my needs. 

i will also give the sigma a try


----------

