Nikon 70-200 f/2.8e vs. new Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sport

[kenevenpar]

I am in the market for a high quality 70-200 and was set on the Nikon, which I have rented and think is great.

 

So why not just get the Nikon.  The new Sigma is reviewing extremely well, and ... is more than a thousand $$ less.

 

Any experience with these and/or suggestions.  FYI, my primary camera is the D500.

 

Ken

[Loonbeam]

I have rented the Nikon and borrowed the Sigma.  The Nikon seems a tad sharper, and a little better in low light due to the aperture, but honestly the difference is outweighed by the price variance.  I have a hard time justifying Nikon lenses anymore except for full time pros (who can often call it a business expense).  

 

I may pick up the Sigma when on sale somewhere, but right now the Tamron 18-400 plus my Art 24-105 covers that range pretty well, I'd just like to get the lower aperture at some points for low light shooting.

 

I also use the D500 as the Primary.

[kenevenpar]

20 hours ago, Loonbeam said:

I have rented the Nikon and borrowed the Sigma.  The Nikon seems a tad sharper, and a little better in low light due to the aperture, but honestly the difference is outweighed by the price variance.  I have a hard time justifying Nikon lenses anymore except for full time pros (who can often call it a business expense).  

 

I may pick up the Sigma when on sale somewhere, but right now the Tamron 18-400 plus my Art 24-105 covers that range pretty well, I'd just like to get the lower aperture at some points for low light shooting.

 

I also use the D500 as the Primary.

Thanks!

 

The Sigma I was mentioning is the new one, which in a Nikon electromagnetic mount hasn't been released.  The reviews are based on tests on a Canon primarily.

 

Still thinking about it, but you are right, the price differential is substantial!

[Loonbeam]

1 hour ago, kenevenpar said:

Thanks!

 

The Sigma I was mentioning is the new one, which in a Nikon electromagnetic mount hasn't been released.  The reviews are based on tests on a Canon primarily.

 

Still thinking about it, but you are right, the price differential is substantial!

Ah, I was apparently thinking the older one, which is on closeout now and still a good lens.  Hadn't realized there was a new one even.

[pierces]

It is now available for pre-order on B&H Photo's site. "Coming soon".

 

My 2¢...Sigma's new Art and Sports lenses are often rated near or at the top of lenses in their respective classes. They have improved on some very good designs and are NOT PRODUCING SONY FE MOUNT FAST ENOUGH!

 

Sorry about that last. the $1000 differential got my attention as well. 🙂

 

Dave

[havoc315]

I have experience with neither lens but I will speak very generally: You lose much when you go 3rd party with Tamron and Sigma, if the specs are equivalent. If the lenses are the same focal length, same aperture, same IS/Non-IS, then any remaining differences really tend to be minor and not obvious in images. Sure, one lens may produce sharper corners... one lens may have slightly smoother bokeh... one lens may have a quieter autofocus or better weather sealing.... one lens may have more or less CA... maybe the biggest, one lens may have more focus breathing than another. But when you compare final images, you will rarely actually notice any significant differences.  So when a reputable third party offers a MUCH cheaper lens, my bias is to favor the third party. For example, I happily used the Tamron 24-70/2.8 on my Nikon D750.

 

 

[Loonbeam]

8 hours ago, pierces said:

It is now available for pre-order on B&H Photo's site. "Coming soon".

 

My 2¢...Sigma's new Art and Sports lenses are often rated near or at the top of lenses in their respective classes. They have improved on some very good designs and are NOT PRODUCING SONY FE MOUNT FAST ENOUGH!

 

Sorry about that last. the $1000 differential got my attention as well. 🙂

 

Dave

I have replaced almost all of my lens sets with Sigma or Tamron.   The Art lenses especially are (to me) better than their Nikon equivalents and cheaper...

 

Once I sell two lenses I'll be down to Tamron 18-400 and 150-600, Sigma Art 50mm, Art 24-105 and Contemp 12-18.

 

 

[kenevenpar]

Of course, Nikon is making the decision more difficult.  They just offered a $300 reduction on this lens, and it has a 5 year warranty.

 

The Sigma is now only $1,000 less than new, and $900 less than refurb.

[Loonbeam]

On 2/4/2019 at 9:02 AM, kenevenpar said:

Of course, Nikon is making the decision more difficult.  They just offered a $300 reduction on this lens, and it has a 5 year warranty.

 

The Sigma is now only $1,000 less than new, and $900 less than refurb.

That's still $1000 or basically another decent lens.

 

[kenevenpar]

Agree!  My last sentence was tongue in cheek.  Waiting on the Sigma release to try it.  It is a bit heavier.  I'll have to wait to see how sharp and fast it is.

Edited February 6, 2019 by kenevenpar