70-200mm with D7000, Nikon (2000e) or Sigma (800e)

Hi all,

I'm planning to get a 70-200mm telephoto lens, and currently my options are:
[h=1]A) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II[/h][h=1]B) Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM, Nikon[/h]Nikon's price is about 2000e when Sigma costs 800e. I've read that Nikon has better optical quality, but my question is that how big is the difference? I'm using D7000 and taking pictures of family events (kid's sports), some occasional nature photography etc, not anything as a pro. Without a detailed A/B test can I really see the difference? Price difference is so massive, that I'm not that interested in putting 1200e more to Nikon if there are no big benefits.

Heka said:

Hi all,

I'm planning to get a 70-200mm telephoto lens, and currently my options are:
A) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

B) Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM, Nikon

Nikon's price is about 2000e when Sigma costs 800e. I've read that Nikon has better optical quality, but my question is that how big is the difference? I'm using D7000 and taking pictures of family events (kid's sports), some occasional nature photography etc, not anything as a pro. Without a detailed A/B test can I really see the difference? Price difference is so massive, that I'm not that interested in putting 1200e more to Nikon if there are no big benefits.

Click to expand...

You can always look for the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRI in the used market to get a similarly high quality and solid built lens as an alternative option. The VRII is optically sharper especially when used with a FX compared to the VRI. Since you will be using a DX, the VRI will be ideal.

On the D7000 the difference in optical sharpness is minimal.

10 vs 9 on DxO marks.

Of course if you buy a different cam in the future, the difference might become bigger. On the D810 as an example it is already 27 to 19.

First post.....a used 70-200 vr1 is an excellent buy, rugged, consistent and fast but do you need the weight for the faster aperture? A 70-200 f/4 is optically excellent, smaller lighter and closer to the Sigma in price. I use my 70-200 2.8 on my D7000 and D800 and is my favorite lens out of the many top lenses in the bag. I like its "look" for portraits either in studio or lifestyle outdoors. It is not as fast as my 85 1.4 in aperture or with as much flexibility for out of focus rendering than the 135 DC but is more useful in more situation than both put together. I had 120,000 shots through it on my D90 and it is still going strong 4 years later.
If weight is an issue, get the 70-200 f/4, if lower light and cost are the prime considerations, a good used 70-200 vr1 is hard to beat at about $1100-1300 and if the is good enough and you plan on moving to FX in the future, invest in the VRII.
I like Sigma lenses but after using both the Nikon and Sigma, I am happy with my choice. Some Sigma's, like in their Art series are seriously excellent lenses which have the industry scratching their collective heads on how to beat them. I have their 50 1.4 that has been out for a while and love to look in the center but it is poor in the corners....just what I want for portraits but the Nikon 50 1.4G is cheaper, smaller and sharper corner to corner. I also have a 50 1.2 MF Nikon that is my best built lens but not a great performer compared to modern glass. I mention this only because the new Sigma 50 Art series lens blows all these great lens out. So comments are not the typical 3rd party lens bashes, I like good lenses where ever I find them, and the cheaper the better but the 70-200 Nikon is just better. With lenses of this quality, buying used is not the risk of buying high count bodies are or high millage cars are.

Thanks for the comments, good points from several persons. Nikon VR1 has been one option, but it seems to be a bit difficult to find, here in Finland the market of used lenses is pretty limited. Thanks to J-see for pointing out the fact that the difference in optical sharpness is not that big when using it with D7000 (which will be my main body for next couple of years). 1200e addition to a 800e lens for only minimal performance improvement is not what I want to do, so I decided to go with the Sigma. Let's see how it performs in different situations.

Heka said:

...so I decided to go with the Sigma. Let's see how it performs in different situations.

Click to expand...

Well, here are some examples how the Sigma performed when I was taking shots of my daughter's figure skating performance:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...si/Pinjan luistelukollaasi - Grani 081214.jpg

It was a bit challenge to get proper pictures due to the poor lightning. Last Friday my daughter had a another competition and I was able to use ISO 800 there, now I had to use ISO 1600 (other settings were pretty similar, 1/400 and F2.8).

Is it possible to demo the Nikon 70-200 F4? - one stop slower but many here say it is outstanding.....certainly would be on my try list as 1/2 the price