Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR vs. Sigma 70-200mm EX APO HSM

[vinodkutty]

I've seen a couple of posts regarding the 80-200mm Nikkors vs. the

above Sigma, but I'm interested in the 70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR Nikkor

and how it compares to the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM.

 

I have an F80s body, and a 28-80mm lens. I've decided I need

something in the 70-200mm range, and I'm looking at the Nikkor + Sigma.

 

The kinds of photos I tend to take include:

 

- dusk or night time (sunset, moonrise, buildings, etc. although half

involve wider angles where I wouldn't use this lens)

 

- people (action shots, indoors at parties, etc ... I like to pick out

candid closeups of people from afar, as well as the usual group portraits)

 

- travel/outdoors (flora/fauna in the wilderness as well as lots of

cities - building facades, people in the streets, statues, etc.)

 

- food (occasionally )

 

From what I've read, the Sigma has excellent optics, and so the

choice seems to boil down to VR or not (although some say other

factors like build quality are better in the Nikkor). On the downside,

the Nikkor appears to be more susceptible to flare, but how bad is it

compared to the Sigma?

 

I'm a little nervous about spending the money (but ultimately I can

afford either, even if it stings in the short term). It seems like I

could benefit most from the VR in the lower light situations where I

do not have a tripod (esp. when traveling which I will be doing more of).

 

Additionally, if I use a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter, I expect to be

better off for hand held shots. Finally, I'd simly like to invest in

something that lasts and gives me the max flexibility to get the shots

I want.

 

So I just need a sanity check before I spend the money ... any

comments? Do the above seem like valid reasons or am I over-estimating

the importance of VR or other factors when comparing these two lenses?

 

Any other non-Nikkor lenses that have the same functionality?

 

TIA,

-VK

[robert_nancarrow]

I have neither lens but will soon buy the Nikkor. Sounds like you've already made your mind up and won't be happy unless you get the Nikkor, why not be happy? Bob.

[mark_chappell]

I don't have either lens but stabilization (VR) is a wonderful technology and will likely

prove extremely useful, unless you never take your lens off a tripod. So, I'd go with the

Nikon lens if you can afford it.

[rich_taylor____mequon__wi]

I use the Nikon, and I recommend the Nikon if you can afford it. The fact is that the two lenses are not equals, and if you can buy the better of the two, you will be much happier. I can't cite specific technical differences between the two lenses, and I have nothing against Sigma, but I also believe that you get what you pay for. You will love the Nikon lens, and the VR at the longer focal lengths is excellent. You'll regret not having the VR when you're wide open and trying to isolate a face or detail from afar. Go for it! I think it was Plato who said, "Life is too short for bargain lenses."

[hugh_t]

I have the Nikon ((70-200) and it's great, it's probably overkill for me, photography is just my hobby. I also had the 80-200 AFD (two rings) and optically they both are incredible. The 80-200 Nikon did focus really fast on my F100 but the the silent wave is slightly faster and quieter. Some of my best sports shots were take with the old 80-200 and F100 and monopod. I probably get a slightly higher percentage of keepers because of the silent wave motor now, but I'm primarily digital and so it isn't as big of a deal. If I was in your shoes making the decision based on what you told us I would consider this option. The 70-200 Nikon is roughly $1500, for that you can get a new D70 ($999) and also a used 80-200 NIkon AFD tripod mount in great condition from KEH. I know it's not really the question you wanted answered, but it never hurts to explore all you options.

[rick_twigg]

I don't have any experience with the Sigma, but I can tell you the

Nikon is the best lens I've ever used. The VR works well and the

bokeh this lens produces is wonderful. I'd say spend for the

Nikon.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have owned an Nikon 80-200 AF-S for 4 years now, and find it's optical and mechanical quality to be outstanding. Images with the 80-200 are amazingly sharp with high contrast. I recently acquired a Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR, and find it to be all that an more. To put it simply, I can take saleable shots at 1/15 second and 200 mm, hand-held, of reasonably still subjects.

 

I can't see any difference in sharpness using either lens on a D1x. I suspect, however, that the camera is the limiting element. Perhaps it's an excuse to shoot some film for comparison. By all reports, the sharpness of the new lens is as good or better. The 80-200, on film, is stunning!

 

I've seen complaints about flare, but I doubt that a couple more elements is going to cause a problem in that regard. The fact that digital sensors cause more reflections than film may contribute to this observation. I haven't had this issue yet.

[vinodkutty]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I guess it was more moral support I needed than anything else, since this is my first investment in a quality lens.

 

I ordered the Nikkor and I can't wait to get it!

 

The D70 + used 80-200mm (mentioned by Hugh above) for the same price is an interesting option I had not considered for the short term. However I think I will get a good digital body next year, and use the 70-200mm VR with it.