Lens Advice sought, Nikon vs Sigma

[PeterCollins]

Hey Guys,

Need a little input from the more experience peeps here...I know its a little marathon but i would be really grateful for any help or advice you can offer.

Ok here is the situation...

My current armoury includes a 50mm 1.8 // 85mm 1.8 // 18-70 3.5-4.5 // 70-300 VR // 300mm F4 non afs along with a few other lenses like macro etc but this is the main kit bag

I am looking at getting a 70-200 2.8 VRI, now i shoot on a d2x with the cropped sensor I wont see much of the improvement offered by the VR2 version which sorted out the vignetting on full frame cameras.

Now my Dad and I have been speaking about it and he seems to think i would be better off saving cash and getting the Sigma 70-200 HSM OS.

Something to point out is that i will be adding a convertor to this lense regardless of Sigma or Nikon. Either or both the 1.4 and 2x

Now the big question is -- Is it worth getting the Nikon for the overall quality, i will be buying second hand and the stories i read of quality control at Sigma make me nervous whereas the Nikon version appears to be built like a rock.

I can get a Sigma one for about £400 cheaper then the Nikon, now I say money is no object as I will be getting one anyway, but if there is literially no difference or very little difference I could see me getting a Sigma, but if there is a noticeable difference I sway for Nikon...

Help?

[Grant Eldridge]

Hi Peter,

I'll tell you my experience as I've gone through this the expensive way ;-) Everytime I buy an equavilent sigma lens to a particular Nikon model I'm looking at, I always end up selling the Sigma and buying the Nikon in the end. I did this with the 70-200 VRI you are considering. Everytime I take an image with the Nikon it puts a smile on my face....its a very sharp lens with beautiful image quality. I've also used it with the 1.4X and the 1.7X teleconverters and still it is very good. The old 2X teleconverter is just not worth image loss, not sure about the new teleconverter (Nikon converters are very much lagging behind Canon in image quality). A friend of mine who has the new 2X says it is okay for close up work not very good for things like bird photography.

Nikon's 70-200 is a pro level lens and as such pruduces brilliant results. I get the feeling Sigma is just step below that and leaves you wanting for that little bit more.

Hope that helps,
Grant

[Alan Melle]

I concur with Grant. The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR 1 is an excellent lens for a DX camera body like the D2x. If you anticipate eventually going to a full frame FX body then get the new 70-200 f/2.8 VR 2 model.

[PeterCollins]

Thank you to both of you its very helpful to hear from people who have used this equipment before purchase.

With your convertors grant did you notice much loss in sharpness etc with the convertors, i have read some wonderful things about the 70-200 with a 1.4 on it, how has your experience been?

More opinions / thoughts very much welcome!

[Grant Eldridge]

The 1.4X and the 70-200mm are an excellent combination. I've used that on both APS and full frame and you have to do some pretty unreasonable pixel peeping to see a difference. With the 1.7X you need to take a bit more care but it is still very good and very sharp. Especially if you stop down a bit. The TC-20E II is good for close ups, think a bee on a flower, but pretty bad for things like birds in flight. I have yet to test run the TC-20E III.

[allanrube]

I don't have any Sigma lenses but have read they have quality controls problems. Chances of buying a lemon are less with a Nikon.

[PeterCollins]

I don't have any Sigma lenses but have read they have quality controls problems. Chances of buying a lemon are less with a Nikon.

yeah thats what i am afraid of

Think its the Nikon for me :) i did have a strong feeling it would be, but always good to check what others think!