Art and Photography

70-200mm 2.8 - Sigma vs Nikon

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 24th, 2008 7:30 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 13, 2005
1799 posts
237 upvotes
Toronto

70-200mm 2.8 - Sigma vs Nikon

Hi guys,

Need your advice on this one. I am going back to HK in a month and I plan to pick up a telephoto zoom to upgrade from my 55-200mm VR.

I've been reading up a lot of great reviews on the Nikkor 70-200mm VR. the only downside is it costs ~1800 CDN (at best probably 1600 if purchased in HK)

then i decided to research for cheaper alternative and came across the Sigma AF 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM which costs considerably less at around 900-1000. Reviews seem to be generally positive with the only downside being there is no image stabilization.

Which would be a better choice? And are there any alternative I can look into?

I am planning to use this for mostly shooting indoor sports photography for my university newspaper and unfortunately the lighting is pretty poor in our gyms so using my current 55-200mm is out of the question.

thanks
Portfolio: AH87 Studios
Nikon D700 | Nikon 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8


FS: MINT CONDITION Google Nexus S - $150 OBO
15 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 17, 2003
3042 posts
21 upvotes
I own the Sigma and I love mine. The HSM powered AF is just as fast as the Nikon, nice colors and contrast, good bokeh, and while not quite as sharp as the Nikon wide open it's pretty darn close in most tests I've seen. Considering that you can find this lens used for $750 or so it pretty much destroys the competition for bang for your buck.

VR is useless for sports - it helps with shaky hands but not moving players. Indoors you'll still be shooting at ISO1600 and running the results through neatimage or noise ninja.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
7174 posts
217 upvotes
Nepean
Perhaps the Nikon 80-200 AF-D, it's price is similar to the Sigma . Though it does not have HSM but just old fashion AF. Quality I'm sure either is fine, but I prefer the feel of the Nikon lens.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 15, 2003
4393 posts
208 upvotes
Toronto
TenzoR wrote: Perhaps the Nikon 80-200 AF-D, it's price is similar to the Sigma . Though it does not have HSM but just old fashion AF. Quality I'm sure either is fine, but I prefer the feel of the Nikon lens.
Agreed. Gets the Nikon 80-200 if VR is not important to you.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 13, 2005
1799 posts
237 upvotes
Toronto
sungfra wrote: Agreed. Gets the Nikon 80-200 if VR is not important to you.
thanks for the suggestion.
i'm not overly worried about VR at all. I am used to shooting with VR turned off anyways, and since I have 2.8 to work with, i'm sure fast shutter speed can correct for it.

unfortunately I am currently shooting with a D40 (probably won't upgrade for another year or so) so looks like I will be safer getting the AF-S model which is around 1100 - still a reasonable price for me compared to the Nikon 70-200.

so i guess now the question is Sigma 70-200mm HSM or Nikon 80-200mm AF-S?
Portfolio: AH87 Studios
Nikon D700 | Nikon 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8 | Nikon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 | Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8


FS: MINT CONDITION Google Nexus S - $150 OBO
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2004
1570 posts
73 upvotes
Toronto
You can pick up a used 2-ring 80-200 f/2.8 for cheap (not the AF-S). There's a guy on FM who just offered me one in supposedly mint condition for $625, unfortunately I just had my sister bring me back one from the same forum for $700.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
430 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga
Don't cheap out on a telephoto.

1) At the long end, 200mm on a cropped body (1.6 x 200), at F2.8 you still need to achieve a 1/320 shutter to get sharp images. (Choosing a shutter speed faster than the focal length of the lens is effective if your holding the camera. For example, if your shooting with a focal length of 75 mm then make sure your shutter speed is 1/80th of a second or faster. If your focal length is 100mm then shoot with a shutter speed of 1/125 of a second or faster and so forth.)


a) there's a problem with no VR at that focal range (say 200mm), which requires you to bump ISO up - which means more noise.
b) there is still an inherent vibration at the long end, even the slightest movement is magnified 3 to 4 times or more, causing image blur.

2) See the following graphs, courtesy of DPREview.com:

a) [IMG]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... is_off.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... _is_on.gif[/IMG]

Notice the difference?

Side note: Call me elitist if you must but I love reading threads where people try to have others convince them that its ok to go with the cheaper route in photography. Cheap in photography does not equate to great, since it is an expensive hobby to get into. Most always always overlook the fact that lenses retain their value long well after they've been purchased than the camera bodies. If you look hard enough, I am positive you can find the best of the best of lenses cheaper then retail. Example, my Canon 70-200MM F2.8L IS retails for $2299.99 at most stores (Blacks, Henrys, etc.) but I managed to find it online for $1450 through a user on these forums.
Newbie
User avatar
Feb 11, 2008
55 posts
ontario
I own a Sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM that was calibrated and updated by Sigma. Sharp at all focal lengths, contrasty with creamy bokeh.

However having also used a nikkor 70-200 VR, I can assure you that the Nikon is a step ahead everywhere. My Sigma focuses fast, the Nikon focuses faster. It's a tad sharper and with a touch more contrast, better at focus tracking (I shoot figure skating, which is it's own challenge!), and feels better while holding it. And VR is useful in many situations when slower shutter can be utilized for a sharper picture - sounds like a contradiction, but many sports photo pros know to stop action at it's peak moment, when everything's "standing still".

This comparison is based on my D300, which is capable enough to show minor differences in image and handling qualities between lenses. Though I still love my Sigma 70-200 alot, I'm definitely going to get a Nikkor when the time comes.
Deal Addict
Jan 17, 2004
1570 posts
73 upvotes
Toronto
CSAgent wrote: Don't cheap out on a telephoto.
...
Side note: Call me elitist if you must but I love reading threads where people try to have others convince them that its ok to go with the cheaper route in photography. Cheap in photography does not equate to great, since it is an expensive hobby to get into. Most always always overlook the fact that lenses retain their value long well after they've been purchased than the camera bodies. If you look hard enough, I am positive you can find the best of the best of lenses cheaper then retail. Example, my Canon 70-200MM F2.8L IS retails for $2299.99 at most stores (Blacks, Henrys, etc.) but I managed to find it online for $1450 through a user on these forums.
Although I don't disagree with your main point, I'm not following most of that last paragraph. Sure you can find *anything* cheaper than retail, especially if you choose to go used or grey market (at least one of which, I assume, you did). I'm not one of those guys who is going to argue that the equipment is irrelevant: when I compare the images from my expensive Nikon glass to those from my not-so-expensive glass, there's a difference that even my wife can see in blind tests (and trust me, that is a justification she does not want to make). I'd tell anyone who can afford it to go ahead and seriously consider spending the extra money on an expensive lens.

But in most cases budget plays a role in determining what lens to buy, and the OP clearly indicated that budget was a consideration. You can buy a one-ring Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for $400-500 used (US), or you can buy the 70-200 VR, also used, for about $1300-$1500. That's a big difference. I'd love to have the latter lens, and when my kids start playing sports I will probably get one without thinking about it too much. But I would never say that someone "cheaped out" if they opted to save themselves maybe $1000 by buying a lens that pros were using not too many years ago.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
430 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga
NuggyBuggy wrote: I'd tell anyone who can afford it to go ahead and seriously consider spending the extra money on an expensive lens.

But in most cases budget plays a role in determining what lens to buy, and the OP clearly indicated that budget was a consideration. You can buy a one-ring Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 for $400-500 used (US), or you can buy the 70-200 VR, also used, for about $1300-$1500. That's a big difference. I'd love to have the latter lens, and when my kids start playing sports I will probably get one without thinking about it too much. But I would never say that someone "cheaped out" if they opted to save themselves maybe $1000 by buying a lens that pros were using not too many years ago.
The original post did state it would be for indoor sports photography and we all know, indoors generally 80% of the time have very poor lighting for cameras. Without VR/IS, you're generally going to get very blurry pictures.

But think of it this way, spend say, $1000 now to get the Sigma, have blurred pics indoor since there's no VR. Then later on, have funds to buy the Nikon Vr lens which may run $1500. But, you'll have to sell the Sigma (why keep 2 telephotos around?) at a reduced cost of say $800, you're losing out $200. And, there's the factor of not many people wanting to purchase it in the first place. (See on craiglist, the insane number of the Canon F4 17-85mm IS lens being sold. Or rather, not being sold. I had to reduce my own 17-85mm IS a total of 4 times over the course of 2 months before someone bought it off of me..)

My point is, do it right the first time. Do it right the second time, you lose time, money, and moments where you could have captured a great photo without it being blurred.

My final advice to Shinjieva01, skip the Sigma, save up for the Nikon. You won't regret it. Sports photography - lots of action, very very quick movements and it being indoors, you're working with very low light that needs all the stabilization you can use. Sure you can mount a non VR lens on a tripod...but think about all the running you'll have to do to cover a sports event at your university effectively.
Jr. Member
Dec 29, 2002
101 posts
My advice is to rent the Nikon 70-200 VR from Vistek and try to shoot inside your gym. Try it with VR on and off. If you think the results are acceptable then save up for the Nikon because it really is worth the money. If you want to save some money and you think the shots with VR off are acceptable then get the Sigma 70-200 or a Nikon 80-200.

The problem here is shooting action shots inside a dimly lit gym is very very difficult and you might not be able to get the shots you're looking for even with the 70-200VR.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 7, 2005
1624 posts
216 upvotes
Toronto
Do it right first time? Then might as well get the 200mm f/2 VR! :razz:

Is the OP getting paid for this, or is it voluntary/hobby? If money's a consideration (and it seems to be), then the Sigma is the better bang-for-buck lens - and I don't think that can be denied. Sure, perhaps the Nikon is slightly better, but you start to pay a high premium for marginally better results.

After going through lots and lots of expensive gear, I can firmly say that skill and experience are the most important things. And anyways, with a D40, I bet the limiting factor for focusing/tracking in this case would be the body as opposed to the lens.

So my final suggestion.... If it's primarily for sports you don't really need VR. Just make sure to get a monopod instead!!! (And it's cheaper!)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 7, 2008
2510 posts
172 upvotes
Shinjieva01 wrote: Hi guys,

Need your advice on this one. I am going back to HK in a month and I plan to pick up a telephoto zoom to upgrade from my 55-200mm VR.

I've been reading up a lot of great reviews on the Nikkor 70-200mm VR. the only downside is it costs ~1800 CDN (at best probably 1600 if purchased in HK)

then i decided to research for cheaper alternative and came across the Sigma AF 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM which costs considerably less at around 900-1000. Reviews seem to be generally positive with the only downside being there is no image stabilization.

Which would be a better choice? And are there any alternative I can look into?

I am planning to use this for mostly shooting indoor sports photography for my university newspaper and unfortunately the lighting is pretty poor in our gyms so using my current 55-200mm is out of the question.

thanks
Instead of getting VR telephone, maybe you should consider getting a D3 for indoor sport!

but seriously, you should consider a body upgrade as well with indoor sport... I have my doubt with it's ability to focus in poor lighting and fast moving object....

I vote for 80-200mm for myself, but in your case, 70-200mm VR... or maybe quit indoor sport and consider outdoor sport like baseball ;)
Newbie
User avatar
Feb 11, 2008
55 posts
ontario
Here's an example of my Sigma 70-200 2.8 during a Figure skate test. 1/250/ f2.8 hand held at 200mm. This was from the local indoor rink, which would have similar lighting to a gym. Also, if needed, a monopod would be sufficient for this lens in a gym.


[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/260 ... bf90_b.jpg[/IMG]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 17, 2003
3042 posts
21 upvotes
Essentially, just pick a budget, and buy the nicest f2.8 lens you can get your hands on withing that budget. The Nikon 70-200VR is the very best you can get in that class, but it's crazy expensive. The Sigma is, in terms of overall speed and performance, a close second along with the Nikon 80-200. Heck, until about 2 years ago these two lenses were your only choices!

I certainly don't advocate cheaping out on your lenses. Cheap glass doesn't work as well as good glass. I think calling a $1000, built-like-a-tank f2.8 lens "cheap" is a bit silly though. It's like saying my D80 is "cheap" because hey, the D3 is available now. :)

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)