70-200mm

Wedge

Wedge

Wedge

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,858
Location
watchin scrubs.
Hey

I have recently upgraded for the last time, gone from D40X, to D90 to D700 in around 4 years.

I have sold all my old kit and am left with nikkor 24-70 & nikkor 50 1.4.

I have been reading a lot about 70-200mm lens's and want to know if anybody has any experience with the latest offering from Sigma?

Its half the price of the nikkor version, but is it half as good?

or do i wait and save for the nikon?
 
Its not half as good, but the Nikon is definitely better. Note there are 2 version of the Nikon 70-200 VR. The newer one has better corners and takes TCs better, otherwise they are similar. Worth looking at the price of a 2nd hand version 1. I have a the earlier 70-200 VR I and it is an amazing lens. The main difference will be if you do landscapes or want to use TCs a lot, then the newer one is worth it. For portrature they are similar.

The Sigmas are a mixed bag. I nearly purchased one but in the end wasn't convinved of the performance at 2.8, where it really matters. There is now a newer Sigma 70-200 with OS, but this is much more expensive. Not sure if they have really improved the IQ.


A lot depends on what you want out of the lens. If you really want that extra bit of acuity then i-m afraid the Nikon is the best choice. Looking at prices, it seems you can get a Sigma 120-300 2.8 for the price of the new Nikon 70-200. If you need the reach
and you don't mind the weight it is worth looking into, the Sigma 120-300 is very well regarded. But this is a very different type of lens.
 
I'm always pleasantly surprised when I use my Sigma 70-200. I would change it for the Canon mkII though if I had the money! The new OS Sigma is tempting but there's not a lot around about it at the moment.

I'm looking to hire a 35L for my brothers wedding, that's gonna be dangerous!
 
Yeah i want it to be good at 2.8!

I used to work with a guy who had a 7D and a Sigma 70-200 and it was as sharp as a tack, but then you here horror storys of really bad examples of the same lens, and the fact that Sigma's quality control is a bit hit and miss (true or not i dont know)

So if i could just bag a good copy id be laffin, just not prepared to take that risk???. I did purchase a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and it was rubbish, really rubbish, sold it a week after having it, and bought the nikkor which as im sure you know is amazing.

I need to maybe borrow/hire a Sigma and see?
 
How about the Nikon 80-200mm AF-D instead? You should be able to get one for a similar price to the Sigma and the optical performance is pretty much on par with VR1 70-200mm. Some may argue that the AF-D is better in the corners than the VR1 although I don't know if this is true or not. I can vouch for the quality of the 80-200mm though. A tank of a lens with sharp perfromance to match. It is sharp and won't cause you to worry when shooting wide open....performance is good at f2.8. It's definitely worth considering.
 
I've got the mk1 Nikon 70-200 VR. It was my first "pro" lens, and when I bought it I was over the moon. But now looking back several years later with several more lenses later, its a bit average to be honest. Even the reviews when it came out regularly concluded "the old 80-200 is better, even without VR".

Wide open on a DX body its very soft, though much better at f4. Haven't tried it on an FX body, but all the reports are pretty bad. The biggest problem for me is the teleconverter performance. No I didn't expect prime+teleconverter performance, but its terribly soft even with the 1.4x, and stopping down only improves it marginally.

While being relatively compact and therefore easy to carry round and shoot with, since buying longer lenses its stayed in the bag most of the time. If I used it more, I'd go for the mkII version which has much better reviews.

No idea of the Sigma sorry, but compared to your 24-70, I think you'll be disappointed with a second hand mkI 70-200.
 
I've had the 70-200 since april, and bloomin love it. Only wish that it had VR sometimes. Check out my flickr in sig for some shots taken with it, all the motorsports ones were done using a D7000 and the 70-200
 
the 70-200 VRI is still a solid lens, and will outperform the Sigmas significantly.

The older Sigmas are very cheap in comparison though, and with no f/4L equivalent in the dark side are hard not to recommend. The OS HSM is better than the old lenses optically (completely new design + OS), so if that's your budget, it's what you should go for.

The majority of Sigma horror stories are AF problems and your D700 has AF microadjust (I think?) so you should be fine. Personally I'd go Sigma OS HSM as there's just so much more I could do with the rest of the money, but it depends how much other kit you have. Without much, like you have, I'd say go with the Sigma, then add a Sigma 85 1.4 (It's markedly better than the 85 1.4D) or similar to get the optical performance when it's absolutely critical?
 
Bluelion said:
I've got the mk1 Nikon 70-200 VR. It was my first "pro" lens, and when I bought it I was over the moon. But now looking back several years later with several more lenses later, its a bit average to be honest. Even the reviews when it came out regularly concluded "the old 80-200 is better, even without VR".

Wide open on a DX body its very soft, though much better at f4. Haven't tried it on an FX body, but all the reports are pretty bad. The biggest problem for me is the teleconverter performance. No I didn't expect prime+teleconverter performance, but its terribly soft even with the 1.4x, and stopping down only improves it marginally.

While being relatively compact and therefore easy to carry round and shoot with, since buying longer lenses its stayed in the bag most of the time. If I used it more, I'd go for the mkII version which has much better reviews.

No idea of the Sigma sorry, but compared to your 24-70, I think you'll be disappointed with a second hand mkI 70-200.
Click to expand...

Not really true. I owned both the Nikon 80-200 AF-D and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I for a year. The VR is definitely sharper, but the 80-200 was immense as well. The 80-200 will have sharper corners on FX though.

The 70-200 does take a hot with a TC like all zooms, no different to the 80-200 in my experience. The new VRII version is noticibly better with TCs though.

You can compare the old new VR version here:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff

The newer one is better overl, but especially at the corners at 200mm. But the old version is not far behind over most of the frame and most of the focal lengths. The newer lens is optimised for 200mm, at shorter lengths there is much less difference.

One thing to not of the enwer lens is it has strong focus breather. At MFD the new lens is only about 150mm while the old lens is still 195mm or so. With the old lens there is a noticible imporvement by backaing up to about 180mm (and stopping down to f/3.2).
 
On the same site you can compare the old Sigma without OS to the origiona Nikon 70-200 VR I, but only on a crop sensor:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...mm-f28-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...mm-f28-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report?start=1

Clearly the Nikon performs better. All depend if that difference is important to you.

You can also see the Nikon 80-200 AF-D. Clearly you can see that the Nikon 70-200 VRI outperfoms the 80-200.

The Nikon 80-200 and Sigma 70-200 Macro are about the same.

The same results are reported on different review sites.
 
we've got 2 canon mount sigmas (the first of the "macro" versions) and theyre both great performers. fast, sharp, really nice IQ. the only thing that would make me consider upgrading would be the lack of weather sealing.
 
I've got the 70-200 VR1, purchased used from a shop, and was initially very disappointed with it.

I purchased a focus checking target thingy, and tested it on my D300 and D700 and found it was front focusing. I dialled in +10 on the focus adjust, and I had a stellar lens again. I'm delighted with it, and it works pretty well with the 1.4x and the new v3 2.0x too. It's a 400 f5.6 in the latter configuration. I wonder if the reason it was traded at the shop was because the previous owner didn't have focus adjustment on their body, and thought it was rubbish.

I owned the non OS Sigma 70-200 in Pentax fit, and it was very good at f4 onwards, though a little soft at f2.8. I purchased it new from a shop and they exchanged it twice for me to see if they were better wide open, but they were all the same.

The Nikon though is a superb lens, sharp wide open (now it's adjusted), and gives nice contrast.

I know I'm not comparing like with like, and Sigma do make some great lenses (a Nikon fit 300 f2.8 I had was great) but Nikon's have a certain 'something' with regard to image quality.
 
Last edited:
Thx for all your input guys!

I know the nikon lens's are a grade above, third party lens's it's just whether I can live with that fact!

I think I'll hire a sigma for a weekend and see how I get on :)
 
would be very interested to hear what you think of it.

i'm in a similar boat to you. Have done the upgrade path from d40 to d5000 to d90 to d700 (arriving next week!) and now that i've started to make a bit of money from photography i feel i can justify some pro level kit.

So as well as buying the d700, i'm hoping to secure a 16-35 f4 vr next week and would dearly love a 70-200...but damn...the nikon vrII is over £1,500 new and i just don't know if i could justify it. I mean i could get the 16-35 nikon and the 70-200 sigma os for the same price.

Obviously i know the nikon is better, but is it THAT better?
 
snow patrol said:
would be very interested to hear what you think of it.

i'm in a similar boat to you. Have done the upgrade path from d40 to d5000 to d90 to d700 (arriving next week!) and now that i've started to make a bit of money from photography i feel i can justify some pro level kit.

So as well as buying the d700, i'm hoping to secure a 16-35 f4 vr next week and would dearly love a 70-200...but damn...the nikon vrII is over £1,500 new and i just don't know if i could justify it. I mean i could get the 16-35 nikon and the 70-200 sigma os for the same price.

Obviously i know the nikon is better, but is it THAT better?
Click to expand...

Think twice about the 16-35 f/4, it's an oddity of a lens. It's nice and sharp but that's it's main feature, it's big and heavy for an f/4 lens and not that much cheaper than the (arguable better and definitely faster) 14-24, though unlike that lens it does take filters. More importantly though, if you don't already have the 24-70 you will want it shortly, it's the only standard zoom worth having for Nikon full frame unfortunately.
 
D.P. said:
Not really true. I owned both the Nikon 80-200 AF-D and Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR I for a year. The VR is definitely sharper, but the 80-200 was immense as well. The 80-200 will have sharper corners on FX though.

The 70-200 does take a hot with a TC like all zooms, no different to the 80-200 in my experience. The new VRII version is noticibly better with TCs though.

You can compare the old new VR version here:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff

The newer one is better overl, but especially at the corners at 200mm. But the old version is not far behind over most of the frame and most of the focal lengths. The newer lens is optimised for 200mm, at shorter lengths there is much less difference.

One thing to not of the enwer lens is it has strong focus breather. At MFD the new lens is only about 150mm while the old lens is still 195mm or so. With the old lens there is a noticible imporvement by backaing up to about 180mm (and stopping down to f/3.2).
Click to expand...

This sums it up, I have the original VR version and that's a fair summary of it. Really rather good in general but shown up by the VRII version in the corners and with TCs. Bear in mind the original VR version dates from a point when Nikon didn't have a full frame DSLR and it's failings are far less evident on a crop sensor.

Depends what you want and how much you'll use it. If I used my 70-200 more for commercial work then I'd replace it with a VRII version I think, but as it's primary use these days is to increase the weight of my bag and I only use it every so often, I find the VR version just fine.

Can't comment too much on the Sigma, I haven't used it and am not likely too. The on-brand vs. third party debate has been done to death and I fall very heavily on the side of on-brand glass and the like.
 
The VR1 corner sharpness and light drop off vs the VR2 are overstated in my opinion.

It's a pro lens, and didn't become useless overnight.

I accept that the VR2 is better than the VR1, just that it's not the massive leap everybody thinks.

The VR1 also takes the 1.4x and 2.0 v3 very well in my practical experience.
 
Tooks said:
The VR1 corner sharpness and light drop off vs the VR2 are overstated in my opinion.

It's a pro lens, and didn't become useless overnight.

I accept that the VR2 is better than the VR1, just that it's not the massive leap everybody thinks.

The VR1 also takes the 1.4x and 2.0 v3 very well in my practical experience.
Click to expand...

True to an extent. As I mentioned though, the original 70-200 VR was tacitly designed for DX format sensors rather than full frame so while it didn't become rubbish overnight the goalposts shifted somewhat.

I do agree though, while the VRII is definitely better, most people won't notice the difference much if at all. Depends what you're shooting on which body though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom