70-200 2.8 advice

I've been drooling over the Nikon 70-200 VR for some time, but at around $1700, it will be very hard for me to get there considering I am getting married this summer and have a lot of wedding/honeymoon expenses.

Does anyone have experience with Sigma's 70-200 lens? I've seen mixed reviews online, but it is about half the cost of the Nikon. Or anything else in this range with a 2.8 aperture?

Any advice is much appreciated.

What camera are you using?

You can't beat the "Beast" from Nikon but the sigma has pretty good reviews on Fred Miranda. Looking at the images from the Beast it is hard to beat. Plus it has Vibration Reduction the sigma doesn't.

(Message edited by rson on February 05, 2009)

Arun has a Canon mount sigma 70-200 f2.8 that is every bit as sharp as it's Canon counterpart but as Rich pointed out no VR / IS at this point.

Normally Sigma lens are even better on Nikon bodies then on Canon so from an IQ/cost standpoint it's probably a winner. I would think resale on that sigma would be OK as well if you ever want to upgrade.

On FM the sigma got a 9.1 overall (Nikon 9.6), usually anything over 9 there you can count on being a good lens.

Sorry, using my D300.

Rich, the lack of a VR-type feature is a concern of mine with the Sigma, but I'm just not sure if it is an $800 difference concern!

I'll be using the lens for wakeboarding shots from the boat, as well as indoor hockey shots, and maybe some portraiture.

I read the FM reviews on the Sigma; it seems the older version (the non-macro) is much better reviewed than the new Macro version. My concern with the Sigma is many talk about build quality issues and inconsistencies with its calibration (although my 10-20 wide from Sigma performs wonderfully).

Anyone else have experience with the Sigma 70-200?

Canon filled the void with the 70-200 f4 L IS which I don't believe at this point Nikon has done.

I'm a big fan of IS although for indoor sports and portraits the f2.8 is the more important feature. Unlikely you'd need IS or f2.8 for wakeboard shooting in general.

I see IS being the most beneficial for static lowlight handheld work and with the teleconvertors on.

I didn't realize the Sigma review I mentioned was an older model, if that's the case I would be leery of the one with only a 7.6 rating.

If you aren't going to get the nikon VR lens than I would suggest getting the Nikon 80-200. It was the version before they added VR. Its a little bit bigger and heavier but the optics are going to be better than the sigma. It should probably fall just under $1000 as well.

Ryan,
Isn't the AF-S version of that lens practically impossible to find?

Check out the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Right price point and the reviews are pretty stellar

if youre going to be using the lens with wake, hockey, and portrait VR wont be to much useful. You may use it with portraits in natural light but actions shots your shutter should be high enough where you wouldn't need it.

I have the 70-200 2.8 vr and rarely use the vr function. It works very good but when i got the D3 i now raise my iso up before going to VR, i use it mainly for panning shots now or low light non action shots.

I never turn IS off on any of my lenses that have it. I've shot numerous tests, including off a tripod and it has no affect on IQ that I can see.

Does the VR on Nikon lenses affect IQ?

I agree that stabilization doesn't help freeze movement but it shouldn't affect anything but battery life with the newest versions.

1 hour ago I picked up the Nikon 70-200 Lens. I had the same questions as you do. What it came down for me was everyone said the Nikon focus's much faster than the sigma or tamron. Since my son plays sports fast focus is very important to me.

Nikon also just raised the price so your going to pay about $1900 for one.