Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AmExpat" data-source="post: 384229" data-attributes="member: 34944">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.</blockquote>

Verification