DSLRUsers.com

I had the opportunity to visit Glen this morning for a nice cup of coffee and to do the great comparison test between the Nikon 70-200VR and the Sigma 70-200mm.

Both shots below were taken with the D2Hs mounted on a Gitzo with RRS55 head. Both shots taken at f/8 1/320th sec iso 200.

Observations: (VR off)

VR bokeh is slightly smoother
VR has slightly better contrast
Sigma has a slightly warmer colour

BUT - the Sigma is slightly sharper.

Both pics shot as RAW - no PP’ing other than to resize and save as a jpeg value 8. Colour space Adobe RGB.

Nikon pic:


Sigma pic:


Given that the Sigma is approximately $1500.00 cheaper than the VR it is certainly worth buying

An interesting comparison Chris and one which would suggest that the Sigma is indeed good value for money (as we all knew that it would be ) Would love to see a comparison at the other end of the range.

This weekend I want to grab Birddog's D2X and shoot something (a $10 not is an Excellent idea!) to see just how sharp the Sigma is...

oh yeah... another difference between the nikkor and sigma.... you can actually but the sigma!

Chris

i think the sigma pic looks more contrasty the bokeh is good too
may consider getting it with the 80-400VR

but i have to hold the thing in my hands if the sigma gels with me and i get a fuzzy feeling down my spine then and only them will i be in the mood to take the sigma leap

a while back someone made an analogy that sigma was like kmart and nikon Grace Brothers, he said would you put k-mart treads on your Mercedes wheels? - what a freak

thanks glen and chris for taking the time out for the demonstration

MHD wrote:This weekend I want to grab Birddog's D2X and shoot something (a $10 not is an Excellent idea!) to see just how sharp the Sigma is...

Shoot it with $100.00 dollar note from your pocket and leave the note behind after shooting please!

Yes, as I mentioned, the Sigma 70-200 can easily compete with the Nikkor 70-200VR, if you didn't have a chance to grab the Nikkor before and now want something to shoot with then, it's the Sigma 70-200

Don't wait, it won't be at that price long, stock of Sigma with Nikon mount is starting to short and guess what? price will be changed soon.

Pls. note: price of the Sigma 70-200 is 1/3 of the Nikkor as of today (Nikkor 70-200VR is now selling from Singapore and HKG around AU$2750.00. It's not a good news and sellers overthere, they do know how to make money in this situation.

Wendell - the analogy that suits more would be that it is not the lenses that are the difference between KMart and Grace Bros but the photographer

Hi guys
thanks for the comparison and it is a great help for those that are contemplating the Sigma over the almost extinct Nikon.

However, would it be fair to say that these lenses should be relatively close in image quality in the mid-range aperture settings (ie. f8 ) ?

Perhaps comparison shots could be taken at low & high end f-stops so everyone can see how the Sigma performs wide open/stopped right down (against the allmighty Nikon VR)

Another interesting test might also be to shoot in low light with the Nikon, VR turned ON, and then trying to take the same shot with the Sigma - to see how different the settings are (obviously the Sigma would need higher ISO, or slower shutter speed, or both) ?!?

It certainly looks like the Sigma is a magnificent lens....and one that many of us would be very happy to have in our arsenal !

Latest news from HKS, don't be panic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sigma 70-200 with Nikon mount is not easy to find in HKG at the same price before and currently no stock at HKS.

I have two backorders for more than 1 week now.

Nikkor 80-400VR is available with a limited quantity, luckily, I can grab few for my backorders. So Hudo, I can see your smiling face now.

What are we going to do? with all the 70-200 range from both Nikon and Sigma?

Move up to 200-400VR

fozzie wrote:Move up to 200-400VR

Yep! Good ideas fozzie! sell your mint 70-200VR and upgrade to the 200-400VR

hehehe... very releived I have mine already

and I'm still waiting each day for the mailman to walk up my drive with a new sigma... but alas still no sight

MHD wrote:hehehe... very releived I have mine already

You were a lucky bugger!

Actually your lens was allocated for jonesy, he paid thru HKS bank account and his money didn't get thru, so last week he had to redo the EFT to my account instead of. BTW, you placed the order after him but your money gone into first so they shipped it to you, with expectation of more stocks to arrive the next day, but now no stocks still and jonesy's lens is in backorder.

Sorry Jonesy, I'll try hard to get it shipped to you once stock arrived

Say, if they got jonesy's money at the right time then you're now perhaps sitting duck there with rant

Please dont hate me jonesy

The way the VR prices are headed you would think that they run of petrol

Paul wrote:The way the VR prices are headed you would think that they run of petrol

Not as simple as standard petrol Paul, Super dupper PULP

I'd be wanting Nitrous Oxide!

MHD wrote::shock:
Please dont hate me jonesy

I am about to go and have serious talks with my bank!!! and its ok MHD, I dont hate you............. surely theres not that many houses in Canberra!

Mate it will come sooner or later. Oh well it happens and yes it is a worry waiting, i know.LOL

Nikon VR at f/2.8



Sigma at f/2.8



Just resized - no PP’ing

Nice comparison, thanks Chris and Glen! Did you do a comnparison at f/2.8? This would be most useful IMO, it's the aperture I shoot at most with my 70-200 VR, either for short DOF for portraits or more light.

Edit: bollocks, beaten, thanks Chris!

Chris,
Are you sure they came from two difference lenses?
It seems to me not much difference and no one can tell if they don't look into the EXIF.
Thanks for posting these.

Again, at f/2.8 the Sigma is a tad sharper

MCWB wrote:Nice comparison, thanks Chris and Glen! Did you do a comnparison at f/2.8? This would be most useful IMO, it's the aperture I shoot at most with my 70-200 VR, either for short DOF for portraits or more light.

Trent,
What are you thinking? sell your 70-200VR with profits and buy the sigma at 1/3 of the Nikkor cost, the loose change will pay for the damage of your recently trip

I swear I'd love to try one of the Sigmas out in the field. I knew when I had my 70-200VR that the Sigma was an almightly sharp lens. The only thing that I'd like to see is to put the two to a handheld test at low light (eg. 1/125 with a flash).

thanks for posting the f2.8 comparisons Chris. The Sigma is starting to look better and better....

I'd still be interested to see a VR/no VR comparison, and what differences in settings there are. For anyone really worried about low light performance, with concerns about handholding long focal lengths with slow shutter speeds, the comparison might prove useful.

For anyone worried about sharpness, bokeh etc... it sure seems that the Sigma is well up there with the Nikon

Very interesting....

kipper wrote:I swear I'd love to try one of the Sigmas out in the field. I knew when I had my 70-200VR that the Sigma was an almightly sharp lens. The only thing that I'd like to see is to put the two to a handheld test at low light (eg. 1/125 with a flash).

Don't have to test and debate, the Nikkor 70-200VR is a winner in this case.

Hahaha, most true Birdy! I clearly wasn't thinking about the money when I bought the 70-200 VR though, not many people do IMO. Now that I've got it though I'm not planning on selling it anytime soon, as I love the results I'm getting with it.

If money enters the equation it's a no-brainer, the Sigma everytime! You pay twice as much for the Nikkor and get what? A bit better boke (IMHO) and the benefit of VR... and I don't think either is worth the price difference, but it's about having the very best for your purposes wityh zero compromises. It's the same reason why people buy a body-only D2X foir $7K+, maybe 5x the cost of a D70 body-only, and it's the same as drag racing: building a 12 sec car is not particularly hard or expensive, but if you want an 11 sec car, that last second is really where the money goes... and yet both are fast cars.

When I bought the Nikon I knew the Sigma would be just as sharp, but VR made the difference and I am sure in many circumstances I have more keepers than I would have had otherwise. When I bought the 12-24 I went for the Sigma and am very happy with it. Thanks Chris for the demo.
Cheers,
Gerard

glamy wrote:When I bought the Nikon I knew the Sigma would be just as sharp, but VR made the difference and I am sure in many circumstances I have more keepers than I would have had otherwise. When I bought the 12-24 I went for the Sigma and am very happy with it.

Great minds Gerard. Did you sort out your issues with your Nikkor 28-70/2.8?

MCWB wrote:

glamy wrote:When I bought the Nikon I knew the Sigma would be just as sharp, but VR made the difference and I am sure in many circumstances I have more keepers than I would have had otherwise. When I bought the 12-24 I went for the Sigma and am very happy with it.

Great minds Gerard. Did you sort out your issues with your Nikkor 28-70/2.8?

It seems to me he doesn't want to part it anymore! he superglued it to his D70.

Hi Trent,
Actually as Birddog says, I have it on most of the time and am very happy with it. It covers most of my needs and take it off mostly to use the 70-200. The problems were with me and not the lens!
I hope you enjoy your trip,
Cheers,
Gerard

The 28-70 is the most sought lens from wedding photographers or PJ after the 17-35.
I still prefer the setup as 12-24Dx/ 17-35/ 28-70/ 70-200.
Whoever has and shoots with the 28-70 AF-S will never want to leave it at home when outing.

I have read some old posts (many different sites) regarding the questionable quality control of sigma lenses.
Speaking mainly for the 70-200 lense, is this an issue to look out for when buying new? Or are the latest manufacturing batches identically magnificent from one lense to the next?

bouyant_clown wrote:I have read some old posts (many different sites) regarding the questionable quality control of sigma lenses.
Speaking mainly for the 70-200 lense, is this an issue to look out for when buying new? Or are the latest manufacturing batches identically magnificent from one lense to the next?

I have found nothing wrong with my Sigma lenses but there have been problems in the past. But, in saying this, you will find that every manufacturer does have problems whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron et al. on occasion.

sirhc55 wrote:

bouyant_clown wrote:I have read some old posts (many different sites) regarding the questionable quality control of sigma lenses.
Speaking mainly for the 70-200 lense, is this an issue to look out for when buying new? Or are the latest manufacturing batches identically magnificent from one lense to the next?

I have found nothing wrong with my Sigma lenses but there have been problems in the past. But, in saying this, you will find that every manufacturer does have problems whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron et al. on occasion.

Yah no probs with mine either, must be all those Sigma haters out there

But seriously, the other Chris is right in saying all manufacturers have issues, just some are discussed more mainstream

Chris

BC, hard for anyone to say with surety, but there is a pretty good sample on this board of 70-200 Sigma with not a bad word said yet. The quality of the unit Chris had yesterday was good, I would be happy to have one of these lenses. This is not the Sigma from ten years ago.

Having just purchased a 70-200 Siggy, I cant help but notice the amazing difference in quality compared to older Siggy lenses.

About 15yrs ago I spent all my money on a Sigma 600mm mirror lens. When I got it home I noticed a black mark on the side. It turned out the paint was peeling off. I could literally scratch the paint off with my hand. They replaced it and the next one got mold inside it within two months. They replaced it with a 350mm or something similar which looked great but its photos were unbelievably poor quality....I think I gave it away.

The newbie looks promising and its got more letters after its name than you could poke a stick at...so it must be good. It has taken me a long time to forget the 'Old Sigma.'

Peter Mc

Thanks guys, my current thoughts are, despite the relatively small sample size, the lack of complaints from the rapidly incresing sigma 70-200 owners frequenting this board has to be considered good!

This thread has been most interesting. Thanx to Glen and Chris. I have had my 70-200VR ordered for over a week now and will get to play with it finally on Sunday. It's coming from Singapore with my cousin and whilst it is considerably more $ than the very beautiful Sigma, I believe I got a very good bargain considering the current world wide shortage of them. I know I won't be dissapointed with it and if the lens lust continues in the future and I just HAVE to get another lens then I have the option of ebaying the VR lens, however I doubt this will happen .

Geoff,
Congrats at last! It will live longer in your bag as mine

Birddog114 wrote:Geoff,
Congrats at last! It will live longer in your bag as mine

Thanx Birdy! I am very excited!!

Nice purchase Geoff, you've been very patient and now it's time to reap the reward.

bouyant_clown wrote:Thanks guys, my current thoughts are, despite the relatively small sample size, the lack of complaints from the rapidly incresing sigma 70-200 owners frequenting this board has to be considered good!

One decision made... now you will just have to join the que to get one!

sirhc55 wrote:Again, at f/2.8 the Sigma is a tad sharper

I would be interested in seing both as 100% crops rather than resizing.

sirhc55 just a question about your comparison ....

did you use AF or MF and why are the Sigma pics centered and not the Nikon pics.

james m wrote:sirhc55 just a question about your comparison ....

did you use AF or MF and why are the Sigma pics centered and not the Nikon pics.

Auto focus was used and I think you will find that I have posted both the Nikon and Sigma at the front of this post

Hello all.

This is an interesting thread and thanks to those that got it started.

Can I ask how the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 compares to the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 (the one with the lens collar)???

Is the nikon with the little bit extra $$$?

Any words of wisdom would be appreciated....

Thanks
Gecko

Hudo Luvs his 80~400VR, thanks Birddog. My 80~200 f2.8 was used "lots" last Sat for a swmsuit shoot in Portland with a Pol Circ. filter and I love the results. Still trying to find a outing to give the VR a good test but for now my lens lust will be satisfied. Until next month hehehehe

Mark