Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR w/1.7x versus Sigma 150-500mm 5-6.3 OS HSM?

[travis mattison]

Does anyone know if there has been a comparison against these to lenses? I found a few opinions on the Sigma

150-500mm with the OS but didn't really find anything comparing it specifically to the Nikon 70-200mm with VR. I

am looking at getting the Nikon 70-200mm with the Nikon 1.7x converter but recently saw some talk about this

Sigma lens. Can anyone share their thoughts on this?

 

The Nikon with the converter would be about twice the cost of the Sigma but also would be like having two

different lens to chose from by using or not using the converter. I'm just wondering if the Nikon will show a

significant difference in quality over the Sigma. I've heard tons of great reviews on the Nikon 70-200mm. I've

also heard pretty good reviews with the 1.4x but not too much about the newer 1.7x. The 2x is suppose to be a

little soft. Well any info comparing these two set ups would be greatly appreciated.

 

Oh and I would be using it on a Nikon D200 and mostly looking at photographing deer and other wildlife (plus the

kids with sports).

[gabesouza]

I can't speak for Sigma, but I know that the 70-200 2.8 VR is an exceptional lens with great features. Usually lenses with as big a range as 150-500, 28-300, etc... suffer from poor image quality at either end. But all I can comment on is that the Nikkor would be the way to go for me without a doubt, especially with the 2.8 end available.

 

Good luck,

 

Gabe.

[ShunCheung]

See this discussion from earlier today:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QrtO

 

Adding a 1.7x or 2x teleconverter is a very effective way to turn the expensive 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR into a poor lens, but just like any other poor lens, if you are willing to stop it way down to f8 or f11, it'll give you decent results.

 

It all depends on how picky you are. I'll be the first to admit that I am very picky and am hard to satisfy.

[Two23]

I am picky and have the Nikon 70-200mm VR and TC-17E. Nice combination. If I thought I needed 500mm I would seriously consider the Sigma though. Depends on how much length you think you need, doesn't it?

 

 

Kent in SD

[joel_blacher]

I have seen and heard such mixed results from those two new Sigmas that I would be very hesitant to get either. I wish that was not the case because Sigmas concepts are excellent.

[travis mattison]

Sure would be nice if the Sigma 150-500mm OS was a good piece of equipment!

 

Seems like I probably can't go wrong with the Nikon 70-200mm VR but I know it's going to leave me wishing I had more reach and there's no way I'm going to be able to spring for the Nikon 200-400mm VR. Even with the 1.7x on the 200mm end it's going to leave me quite a bit shorter than the Sigma.

 

Any other comments or suggestions?

[dan_beaudry]

Hi Travis,

 

All photos in my galleries were shot with Nikon 70-200mm VR and TC-17E. First on my D50, then on my D80 and now it's

on my D300. Fot the types of photos that I take, all hand held, it is indispensable to me.

 

http://www.pbase.com/dansnaturephotos

 

This is a fine medium range zoom (510mm in 35 mm equivalence) combo with excellent capability. I can carry it all day,

craddled in my elbow, when not actively pursuing subjects. My only recommendation is to buy a new neck strap, one with

thick neoprene padding and enough length to allow the camera body to reach your belt line. This way, you can hold the

camera in a more relaxed manner - without the stress that holding it with elbows bent outwards would cause if the straps

are too short. Hope this helps. Good luck with your choice. Dan Beaudry