# Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR II Vs. Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM



## mason (Jun 8, 2006)

Anyone has either one of the above? They are supposed to be second generation of 70-200mm lenses. I like to know some feedback.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

mason said:


> Anyone has either one of the above? They are supposed to be second generation of 70-200mm lenses. I like to know some feedback.


Are you shooting FX or DX format? If you are shooting DX, there is little value in purchasing the Nikkor 70-200 VRII over the VRI. My primarly body is the Nikon D3 and I don't have any issues with the VRI lens. There are many threads regarding the Nikkor on this site: *http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/forumdisplay.php?f=108*

Hope this helps...JL


----------



## mason (Jun 8, 2006)

FX, I use D700.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

mason said:


> FX, I use D700.


I would read through the numerous threads regarding VRI vs. VRII on the Nikoncafe.com and Fredmiranda.com forums to see if the additional cost is worth it to you. As I said, the VRI works for me.

Good luck...JL


----------



## mason (Jun 8, 2006)

I think I am sticking with the Nikkor lense.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

You can't go wrong with Nikkor glass.

Regards...JL


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I agree with SRFast. I have the VR-I on a D90 (OK DX not FX). Amazing results in sun or stadium lights. I am constantly debating whether I should get the D3 (used) for the higher continuous rate, but I lose the 1.5 crop for HS sports pics.

Pitcher shot behind backstop screen, ISO 3200, 200mm, f2.8, hand held in 4.5 shots/sec mode. The tennis player is one of two exchange students I am hosting this year.

If you are shooting sports, the Sigma is not as fast to focus as the AF-S Nikkor. In sports most of the time you will be shooting at 200mm anyway, you should consider 300mm f/2.8 if you got $6K to burn, or consider the the f/4 if you are an amateur with limited funds, around $1.3K.


----------



## mason (Jun 8, 2006)

Alright, I see a couple of comments on Amazon that the new nikkor lense doesn't give you the true focal length.......something like 200mm gives you somewhere 186mm to 190mm. Do you guys experience the same problem? 

The guy zoomed all the way to 200mm and compare to 70-300mm lense, setting zoom at 200mm.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

I checked some of my flickr EXIF data, the 70-200mm does show 200mm. I love my 300mm f/4 when light is available.


----------



## speedy_sam (Mar 16, 2010)

I had bought the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (non stabilized) in 2007, used it for a few months and traded it out for the Nikon 70-200 VR. So my review is with reference to 3 year old models and not the latest.

Nikon over Sigma
+ Nikon has faster focus speeds
+ There were more keeper shots thanks to the VR feature compared to the non-OS Sigma
+ Bokeh was much better
+ Built like a tank
- Heavier than the Sigma

Overall I was much happier with the Nikon

I am not in the least interested in upgrading to the VRII - the price is outrageous.


----------



## SRFast (Sep 3, 2003)

I have no intention of replacing my 70-200 VI with a VII. The images I capture with the D3+70-200 VI combo are very sharp. If I ever get an image that is soft on the edges, I will simply crop the image. I can live with 98% of a great image.

Regards...JL


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

mason said:


> Alright, I see a couple of comments on Amazon that the new nikkor lense doesn't give you the true focal length.......something like 200mm gives you somewhere 186mm to 190mm. Do you guys experience the same problem?
> 
> The guy zoomed all the way to 200mm and compare to 70-300mm lense, setting zoom at 200mm.


It is not a problem, it is a byproduct of the design. This behavior is well known and has been thoroughly discussed in professional reviews and on photography forum sites. I would suggest you read some professional reviews such as this one to gain a better understanding of this lens: http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

mason said:


> Alright, I see a couple of comments on Amazon that the new nikkor lense doesn't give you the true focal length.......something like 200mm gives you somewhere 186mm to 190mm. Do you guys experience the same problem?
> 
> The guy zoomed all the way to 200mm and compare to 70-300mm lense, setting zoom at 200mm.


They probably mean at close ranges (5 feet?) it's not true 200mm - at longer ranges where you would use it (sports), it's probably a true 200mm.

mason, on FX you need the VRII, and I'd seriously consider a 70-300 VR, since FX gives you killer high iso anyway. Unless money grows on trees.


----------

