zooms: nikon VR vs. sigma 2.8

Does anyone have an opinion on the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF

AF-S VR compared to the Sigma 24-70 2.8. I need a fast zoom for

wedding photography. Will the VR get comparable shutter speeds to

the Sigma 2.8? Are there any drawbacks about VR? Will the AF be

just as fast? Is one sharper at wide aperatures then the other?

Any help will be apreciated.

Katie

I can't offer an answer but one thing to consider is that while VR allows you to use long shutter speeds, people at weddings often don't move slow enough to get a sharp picture at say 1/15th or 1/30th. In low light situations I've had very good experiences with a 35/2 prime lens that yields excellent image quality at f2.8 and is still quite good at larger apertures. That was with film though. On a DSLR the field of view might be too narrow for crowded spaces.

I have them both. Not in love with either of them. The Sigma is big, filter size is 82mm. Never been comfortable with the zoom ring. I always seem to go wide when I want to go long. Some of my best photos were take with this lens (on an F100. Weird. Realisticaly, I could use a 50 1.8 and just footzoom. I'm often tempted to sell the Nikon. The lens just doesn't do it for my soul. Can't explain it anymore than that. I'm looking at a D70 purchase and will see how that combo works. On the technical questions, I can hand hold the Nikon to 1/15 at 70mm. Realize that a photo at f4-5.6 is a different image than 2.8 or, as I suggested, 1.8. The only potential drawbacks of VR are battery drain and potential repair costs. The Nikon is a faster focus, although I think it hunts a bit more than the Sigma. The photos from the Nikon seem to be "flatter". Hope this helps.....Warren