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.
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.