# Sigma vs Nikon 70-200/2.8?



## farski

I've been wanting a fast telephoto zoom for a while, and Nikon's has been out of my price range. Sigma has a new(ish) 70-200 that's significantly cheaper, but seems to include mostly the same features &#8212; optical, zoom, etc. The Sigma is missing the vibration reduction, which probably accounts for most of the price difference. Does anyone have any experience that would allow them to compare the two? I don't buy new lenses often, so if there is a sizable difference in quality or longevity in the Nikon, I would rather wait and get that. If I were to go with the Sigma how much would I miss VR? I've never owned any non-Nikon glass for my D70s.

Thanks.


----------



## Sideburns

Sigma makes awesome lenses.  No doubt about it.  If they were the same, I'd say go for the Sigma if you couldn't afford the Nikon.  But in this case, you have to weight whether you need the VR.  I would personally get it if it was feasible...but that's me.

Also, for longevity, they'll both last a while...though I'm sure the Nikon is a bit more heavy duty.  One thing to remember, though...is that if you were to sell the lens...the Nikon will fetch close to the original cost, or more in some cases...the Sigma, not so much...


----------



## Fate

Nikon will have advantages of build quality, VR and good resale price... and probs a bit of extra sharpness... but it all comes at a cost. 

if you have the money.. go nikon.


----------



## Offbeat

I need to know exactly the same thing. I think im gunna save for the Nikon.


----------



## JerryPH

If the Sigma outperforms the Nikkor, I have no problem getting the Sigma, matter of fact the majority of my lenses are Sigma... however the performance of the 70-200 is unsurpassed.  I made the decision to save up and get the 70-200 Nikkor and it came just in time for Christmas.  I love it.

Be warned, though... its big and heavy... NOT an easy to use as a walk-around or daily lens by any means!


----------



## farski

I'd really been hoping for another outcome, just so I'd end up with a nice zoom sometime soon, but I think the benefits of the Nikon are just too appealing. oh well.


----------



## JIP

You get what you pay for.  if you can't afford the Nikon a Sigma is a reasonable alternative but of course the Nikon is a better lens.


----------



## dpolston

I chose the Nikon over the Sigma (I played with them both in B&H on my last trip). The Nikon I saw (and bought) had features I wanted and franlky, I took the salesperson's recommendation. He said that he'd stick to the name brand to the camera if cost weren't a major factor. 

My only regret was I didn't go for the VR, but this WAS a cost factor for me.


----------



## keith204

from a canon user here...

I went the Sigma route.  At the time I wasn't making money with my gear, and I couldn't "save up" for a Canon.  At the time, it was a good decision.  Even now that I covet the white 70-200 2.8 IS, saving $800 is great.  I can almost buy another coveted lens with that money .


----------



## Garbz

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28_nikon/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm

You do get quite a bit more out of the Nikon lens. It has nearly every advantage. Ultimately if you have the spare money it is a worthy investment as the Nikon lens is of the most superb build quality too. It'll likely be passed on to your kids/grandkids one day.


----------



## JerryPH

Garbz said:


> It'll likely be passed on to your kids/grandkids one day.


 
When I die, I do not want the hands across the chest thing, I want to go holding on to my D200 and 70-200 VR.  You never know, I may find something interesting to take a picture of along the way... lol


----------



## D40

I have the Sigma because I am not makeing money on my photography at this point but still wanted a fast 70-200mm lens. It boils down to: if you can afford the Nikon then get it, if not the Sigma is just fine


----------



## NateS

I'm suprised it hasn't come up yet, but why not consider the Nikon 80-200 f2.8?  Honestly, I think the 80-200 would be more comparable to the Sigma 70-200 since neither have any form of VR.


----------



## farski

can someone explain the difference between 

http://www.preferredphoto.com/viewproduct.aspx?ID=4895351&l=Froogle

and

http://focuscamera.com/sc/froogle-lead-1.asp?id=645523087&rf=froogle&dfdate=1_4_2008&sid=802414990

I used to use the second all the time, but I no longer have it. The seem to be the same price.


----------



## Bevel Heaven

nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR

I *really* like mine


:heart:   yummy   :heart:


----------



## N'Kolor

Nikon hands down!

LOVE MINE!!!


----------



## Happy Hour

I don't know much about Nikon lenses, But my Sigma 70-300 APO DG  Macro is the best lens I have ever used out of Minolta,Sony,and Sigma. and the price is a joke for how great of a lens it is. If your hard on $$ I would not think of another lens than Sigma


----------



## miguelcandela

I think everyone agrees with me on this. 
Sigma brand is a specialist on lenses and their quality has been tested. However, Nikon lenses...specially Nikkor lenses have a supreme quality and great results. 
The question you have to do next is the following; which lens can you afford?

You can always buy second hand lens (If before hand you make sure everything is clean and without any damage)


----------



## farski

NateS said:


> I'm suprised it hasn't come up yet, but why not consider the Nikon 80-200 f2.8?  Honestly, I think the 80-200 would be more comparable to the Sigma 70-200 since neither have any form of VR.



I'd like people who have the sigma to chime in as to why they didn't go with the nikon 80-200, given the relatively small price difference and consistent quality of nikons?


----------



## farski

convenient: http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/70-200mm-zoom-lens-reviews/


----------

