NIKON 70 - 200mm f4

[foo]

Tamron is more expensive by around $450 - £500 compared to the Sigma so ruled that out , rather buy a Nikon 2.8 if I'm going that far over a grand.
Thats why I was thinking between the Nikon f4 ans Sigma 2.8 because they were closest on price.
But to be perfectly honest Nikon will probably win out as the performance over the price difference is far greater , just wanted your particular thoughts is all.

It's not easy being me.

 

[foo]

You are right about the tc as well Rick M , thank you for pointing that out. Trouble is I always hear stories where third party lenses get sent back 2 sometimes 3 times before you get a good one , how many of those rejected lenses get put back into circulation to the buying public.
It seems a gamble sometimes on third party lenses , and I know so many choose Nikon brand over and above for this very reason.

 

[hark]

@hark just went through a situation where she wound up canning her Sigma 70-200mm because it wasn't performing well. She opted for the 70-200mm f/2.8 as she has specific low light needs. Perhaps she can add details. You're talking 1 stop, which in certain situations is a big deal. But high ISO performance is getting better and better, and lets just say I've yet to run into a situation where I cursed myself for having an f/4 - at least on longer zooms.

Nikon f4, but you really seem hung up on 2.8. You need to buy what you really want otherwise will always question whether you should've got the other. The tamron 2.8 VC is rated closest to the nikon

As Jake mentioned, I had the latest version of Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 OS lens. Before purchasing, I tested 3 different copies and bought the one that was sharpest (yes, the one I picked was noticeably sharper especially wide open). It worked well except in low light because its focus was off slightly then. It back focused on my D90 and D600 but front focused on my D610. Sigma would have calibrated it if I chose to do so, but after renting a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, the SOOC shots were noticeably sharper. There was some type of odd depth of field issue with the Sigma--as though the Sigma only had a few inches of depth of field although when using a DOF calculator, the depth should have been much more. I didn't have that issue with the Nikon.

As Rick suggested, you should look into Tamron's 70-200mm f/2.8 as the DXO Mark scores are closer to Nikon's than the Sigma's scores. I've seen some amazing shots here taken with the Sigma, but my copy didn't meet my expectations. Even my Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR is sharper although not suitable for low light situations.

If my only choice was between a Sigma 70-20mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, I'd choose the Nikon. If you really NEED the extra stop, then consider the Tamron. All three lenses are close in price.

 

[foo]

Still think third party lenses are a gamble , tho the low prices always seem to be the temptation , but if you have the money guess you choose the best you can afford.

Who bought a third party lens and sold it only to buy a Nikon equivalent.

 

[gqtuazon]

Still think third party lenses are a gamble , tho the low prices always seem to be the temptation , but if you have the money guess you choose the best you can afford.

Who bought a third party lens and sold it only to buy a Nikon equivalent.

If it is any help to you, I sold my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR 1 and bought the Vr2. It is a keeper and would not live without it as well as the 24-70mm f2.8 lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hark]

Still think third party lenses are a gamble , tho the low prices always seem to be the temptation , but if you have the money guess you choose the best you can afford.

Who bought a third party lens and sold it only to buy a Nikon equivalent.

Although I traded in my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 OS towards its Nikon equivalent, I really find my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 is excellent for the price. The bokeh of the larger apertures isn't as nice as Nikon's, but overall I am VERY happy with this lens' performance. Should I ever upgrade to the Nikon version, I'm not sure I'd sell or trade this lens as it would be an excellent back up.

 

[foo]

Thats it get a good one keep it , I used to use only manual primes before buying my nikon , and there were definitely sample variations , and was lucky enough to buy a few new one at dirt cheap prices.
My Son now has that camera and I kept the rare to get new Olympus om 50mm 2.8 zuiko lens , I got still wrapped in factory poly bag for £25 .
Moving on to Nikon I understand the lenses are qaulity but they are expensive.
Only the 50 fx and 35 dx seem to be bargains.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[foo]

Tripod collar Amazon dslr kit version , how are members coping with this particular one ,is the quality as expected or better .
Has it lasted and how long have you had it , Please let me know if its better than buying Nikons expensive version , many thanks guys.

 

[foo]

Had a bit of time off today went to my local camera shop , to purchase the Nikon 70 - 200mm f4lens , and he only stocks C**on products and one poor lonely Nikon camera a d5100 .
Dissapointed , but he put me in contact with a place online where the price is as close to Sigma;s 70 -200 2.8 it makes buying this lens a no brainer .
So soon as it arrives post some pics on here for you guys.