Which of the two are better and why? I have a Sigma now and thinking of dumping it and forking over the extra for a Nikon lens IF it is worth it. My pics seem somewhat soft on the longer end, I am not sure if it is operator error or the lens. The other lenses I have do not seem to have this issue, they are a 40mm macro, 35mm 1.8, and a 16-85 Nikon lens. It seems that the Sigma is a bit on the slow side for focusing as well, but maybe I am expecting too much? I am still new to this hobby and starting to get more involved and serious about it, sorry about rambling on, but I wanted to get as much info out there as I could about my experience level and gear.........
Sigma 70-200 OS, or Nikon 70-200 vrII?
- Thread starter Wmc3
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Seems you've made up your mind already, reading through your post. The Nikon 70-200mm VRII is an amazing lens, and every performance test and review testifies to it. Nikon pros will sing its praises for everything from portraits to sports. Of the "holy trinity" of zoom lenses it's the only one I have on my "buy this soon" list. It's also twice the price of the Sigma, so it does beg the question, "Is it twice as good?"
Without being able to shoot them side-by-side, the first place I always look when trying to decide between two lenses is here. It allows you to compare similar test shots of two lenses at various apertures with a mouse-over. I look at all the factors, from sharpness to CA, note where they are similar and where they diverge. I avoid "safe" apertures and zoom areas and look at the critical areas of difference, which is usually at the extremes, and then ask myself how often that will impact me? Once I have that, I way those differences against differences in price, and potential resale value.
I've had a huge gap in my bag right between 85mm and 150mm for almost a year now (technically that closed a bit with the arrival of a 105 macro this week). The reason is that I am saving for the Nikon. No one I have ever spoken to has recommended a different zoom in that range for any reason other than budget, weight or expedience. Given that you have the Sigma, you need to decide if it's worth reinvesting. I can't tell you if your lack of sharpness is personal or lens related without seeing photos and EXIF data, but I can tell you that if it's personal then the new lens will only get you part way there.
Without being able to shoot them side-by-side, the first place I always look when trying to decide between two lenses is here. It allows you to compare similar test shots of two lenses at various apertures with a mouse-over. I look at all the factors, from sharpness to CA, note where they are similar and where they diverge. I avoid "safe" apertures and zoom areas and look at the critical areas of difference, which is usually at the extremes, and then ask myself how often that will impact me? Once I have that, I way those differences against differences in price, and potential resale value.
I've had a huge gap in my bag right between 85mm and 150mm for almost a year now (technically that closed a bit with the arrival of a 105 macro this week). The reason is that I am saving for the Nikon. No one I have ever spoken to has recommended a different zoom in that range for any reason other than budget, weight or expedience. Given that you have the Sigma, you need to decide if it's worth reinvesting. I can't tell you if your lack of sharpness is personal or lens related without seeing photos and EXIF data, but I can tell you that if it's personal then the new lens will only get you part way there.
Have you considered the Tamron?
70-200mm Stabilization Showdown - Canon, Nikon, Tamron
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD - Complete review