DSLRUsers.com

Hi guys,

Many of you have probably been asked this before but my search didn't turn up any thing conclusive.

What is a good price for this lens?

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG/HSM

It is at $1070.00 in the "bargains" section. You might be granted access...
Gerard

New or second hand?

I sold mine on Ebay for $920.

It's a good fast lens.

Coles had 1.25 litre bottles on special last week for around $0.90 each.

Try the bargins, seems a good price.


Was lots of info on that lens on this site a while ago.

If I remember even a 70-200VR side by side comparison..

MATT

gstark wrote:Coles had 1.25 litre bottles on special last week for around $0.90 each.

Gary!
You're cruel!!!!!!!
Give it another chance please!

A few members here really enjoy the lens.

The Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 is also a nice lens that a number of members here enjoy using. It is only a few hundred $$ more then the Sigma and certainly not as pricey as the 70-200VR.

Cheers,

André

birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:Coles had 1.25 litre bottles on special last week for around $0.90 each.

Gary!
You're cruel!!!!!!!
Give it another chance please!

OK.

Leigh tells me that at Woolies this week, 2 litres, $1.29!

If I recall the Sigma was actually sharper than the Nikkor at some focal lengths and aperture settings....

you'll find the stacked next to the sony lenses on isle 2

Raskill wrote:If I recall the Sigma was actually sharper than the Nikkor at some focal lengths and aperture settings....

shhhh! Don't tell people who spend thousands on Nikon lenses that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make lenses just as sharp at less than half the price!

I'm a firm believer that some folks suffer from snobbery when it comes to lenses. That being said, I'm thinking of selling a nikkor to buy a sigma. Don't know if that is the right move or not....

Raskill wrote:I'm a firm believer that some folks suffer from snobbery when it comes to lenses. That being said, I'm thinking of selling a nikkor to buy a sigma. Don't know if that is the right move or not....

Raskill,
Try it and tell us more of your experience.

I recently pruchased this lens together with sigma x 2 teleconverter from a member of this forum and am extremely happy with the lens.

Alex

See, I'm giving serious consideration to getting rid of my 70-200 VR, and getting a Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8. If I get about $1500 for my VR, it leaves me needing another $1500 (hello tax man) to purchase my lens.

The sigma gets exceptionally good write reviews on Fredmiranda.com. I find that the extra 100mm of focal length would be very handy, and rather than buy a second hand Nikkor 300mm prime, the sigma comes with the bonus of a zoom capability. I could always just purchase a TC for the VR, but then with the loss of aperture, and the softening of the image, I would be losing out.

Of course, I may just keep the VR, sell one of my bodies (my camera bodies that is), and buy a D200. Options galore!!!

Raskill wrote:I'm a firm believer that some folks suffer from snobbery when it comes to lenses. That being said, I'm thinking of selling a nikkor to buy a sigma. Don't know if that is the right move or not....

Raskill wrote:I'm a firm believer that some folks suffer from snobbery when it comes to lenses. That being said, I'm thinking of selling a nikkor to buy a sigma. Don't know if that is the right move or not....

If you think it's the right move, for you, then it is, and don't let others - including me - try to convince you otherwise.

shhhh! Don't tell people who spend thousands on Nikon lenses that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina make lenses just as sharp at less than half the price!

Sharpness is only a part of the equation. First of all, and as far as sharpness goes, you need to look at the photographer's skill in their use of the lens. Some people can make bad glass sing like a soprano on heat, whereas others can make really great glass end up akin to Lord Downer at CHOGM.

But I choose to not buy third party lenses for reasons other than merely sharpness. When I buy a lens, I want to buy that lens once only, rather than once every time I happen to abuse it.

So I look at build quality too, and in that realm, there are some major differences that can be seen when you have used glass in less than favourable environments or under more hostile conditions.

So, note that a Coke bottle often doesn't simply fail to resolve images with a high degree of acuity; they're often very fragile too.

Alex wrote:I recently pruchased this lens together with sigma x 2 teleconverter from a member of this forum and am extremely happy with the lens.

And with what did the seller replace his lens?

Raskill,
The 70-200VR and Sigma 120-300 are two difference type of lens same as the Nikkor 300/2.8.

Handholding the later is not easy and they're not mobility as the 70-200VR. Required a good setup as tripod and other bits & pieces.

If money is not an issue, Nikkor 70-200VR is a lens on the move (mobility)
And other lenses for difference uses.

The Sigma 120-300 is a nice tele photos lens to have (heavy & bulky) and it produces nice quality photos but if you compare it with the Nikkor 300mm/ 2.8 VR or Non VR, it will be difference

gstark wrote:

Alex wrote:I recently pruchased this lens together with sigma x 2 teleconverter from a member of this forum and am extremely happy with the lens.

And with what did the seller replace his lens?

Nikkor, sorry!

Why they sold Sigma and bought Nikkor?

birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:

Alex wrote:I recently pruchased this lens together with sigma x 2 teleconverter from a member of this forum and am extremely happy with the lens.

And with what did the seller replace his lens?

Nikkor, sorry!

Why they sold Sigma and bought Nikkor?

My point, precisely.

Raskill wrote:See, I'm giving serious consideration to getting rid of my 70-200 VR, and getting a Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8. If I get about $1500 for my VR, it leaves me needing another $1500 (hello tax man) to purchase my lens.

That is a lens that many people enjoy, but at 2.6kg it is not a lens you can carry around like the 70-200,even with TC. If you do a lot of tripod or monopod work I am sure it is fine. Did you buy the 70-200 by "snobbery"?

glamy wrote:Did you buy the 70-200 by "snobbery"?

I admit, I did. Rather than learn to use the Sigma 70-200mm I decided the lens was the problem, and given I had funds at the time, got rid of it and bought the VR.

If I had kept the lens for more than one major event, and learned to use it properly, I would still have it.

By the way, the 'snobbery' comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

gstark wrote:

Alex wrote:I recently pruchased this lens together with sigma x 2 teleconverter from a member of this forum and am extremely happy with the lens.

And with what did the seller replace his lens?

With Nikkor 70-200 VR, but he must have shaky hands

Alex

I have to admit the VR function is really handy for the 70-200. Other than that I cant tell the difference betweem shots with the nikkor or the sigma.

birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:Coles had 1.25 litre bottles on special last week for around $0.90 each.

You're cruel!!!!!!! Give it another chance please!

Oh, I thought he was saying that as far as he can see the coke bottle is just as good as the Sigma, and paying extra for the Nikon would be a complete waste of money. If only my eyes were like that... I could save a fortune on glass!

As a recent seller of a 70-200 Sigma to a happy forum member, I have a bit of an opinion. Yeah I purchased the VR version. The Sigma is and was a great lens in terms of sharpness and it would be splitting hairs to really differentiate the two lenses.

Value for money I would go for the Sigma as it is half the price. Optically there isnt that much difference although I am sure many would disagree. What makes the real difference to me is the faster focus and the VR. The Nik VR has also a more robust finish ie mostly metal whereas Sigma has this matt softer surface that easily scratches.

I found VR a bit strange at the beginning and it took me some time to get used to using it properly. The focusing is faster and for this focal length this is a real bonus. I hope to keep it for 20 yrs as with most of my other Nik lenses.

Last week I was again in Samoa and attended a Fia Fia (Dancing and singing) I was able to take about 300 photos hand held in low light at 2.8 and got some gems that I attribute to the VR function. Sure you can use a tripod sometimes but most of the time I just want to attach it and walk or stand on a chair in the middle of a open restauarant as I did in Samoa.

I think Sigma is really getting its act together and like all competitors, giving Nikon a good reminder that slow response can lead to changes in loyalty. Hey! Sigma has a 17 or 18 to 70 and IMHO Nikon should realease a 17-70 2.8 to put us all out of our misery.

Where Sigma loses it a bit is with too many new releases of lenses. I like having a few bits of the latest kit and its hard to do with Sigma. When I purchased the Sigma late last year the DG version had just been released and within six months they released a newer version which has even closer focusing. Good things dont need updating as quickly as this.

As life changes, I am more interested in purchasing fewer but better lenses and I am happy with my new Nikon 70-200 but would not for one minute criticise anyone with a Sigma of the same calliber. Its really more about photos than the gear so let the photos do the talking.You need to take at least 3-5000 shots before you get used to your lens.

Just a few thoughts in this interesting discussion.

Peter Mc PS: the 70-200 Nikon makes my D70 feel like a plastic toy. I used to attach lenses to my camera and now I attach my camera to the lens. I think I need a D200 to keep up with my lens...good excuse hey

I used to attach lenses to my camera and now I attach my camera to the lens. I think I need a D200...

After today I think I need a porter. I foolishly bought pretty much everything, and it weighs a ton. Then I carried it around for 6 hours... the idea of a kit that is just a Sigma 18-50 plus a 70-200/4 is beginning to seem really attractive. But strangely Johnno who has the lightweight gear was using my f/2.8 lenses a lot of the time. Hmm.

Thanks for all the reading material I didn't know there was such a cold war between the Nikon purists and the Sigma rebellion

I have an option to buy the Sigma new at $1100 which I think is good value and being that i'm an amatuer I think it's a good place to start.

Thanks for your feedback

Ok to add to my last post, I just bought the "Coke Bottle" Gary and it looks good. $1100 brand spanking with 12 months warrantee and lens filter

I'm happy, I reckon I got a good deal

You will not regret your purchase.

Jeff

Mr Rotty wrote:I'm happy, I reckon I got a good deal

And that is the bottom line.

Enjoy it, learn how to make it work for you, and let's see some images from it already!

Fair point! I'll have some dog shots in no time

After reading tech specs and reviews, it will often come to person choice (overstated).

For my 10 cents worth, if i'm buying a lens that I intend to use until 2016 I want somehitng that I like the feel of, is ergonomical in my hands, somehting I can hold and operate in all conditions, with build quality I can trust. That typlically lands me at Nikkor, I have sigma, and love the picks. I have the Nikkor 80-200, just love it! More importantly, I love the pics I get from its use. This weekend at the football, and at Lorne / Great Ocean road.

I like its length and speed, and it was reatail $1600 from Teds (could get better bargain, but was using vouchers from my previous purchase.

The sigma equivalent didnt feel as nice, and it was only $200 cheaper...

Regardless of your choice, get out these and fire through and capture somehting the human eye doesnt catch in passing!

I'll happily admit that if I had the cash, the Nikon Vr lens would be on my camera in a flash

I just couldn't justify having to outlay that type of money for my skill level in photography when I can get a lens that's is half the price and get close to the same results.

I'm eager to learn and I love snapping off shots but i'm happy to do it at a budget price for now.

Mr Rotty wrote:I'm eager to learn and I love snapping off shots but i'm happy to do it at a budget price for now.

FOR NOW!!!!

Thats why I bought a ruff second hand 80-200D 2.8ED to play with till I could save for the 70-200VR.

That sound of my wife ringing in my ears, saying if its not the one you want, then eventually you will grow tired of it and have to purchase again.

So hopefully I'll off load the 80-200 and grab a 70-200Vr if there is stock..but thats another story.


MATT

When I'm ready for the original Nikon VR's i'll look at upgrading the body too