I've been so fascinated with photography since 1 and half year ago..i have a nikon D90 and my current lenses are 18-105 and 55-200 VR.. I decided to buy new lense and replace my 55-200 lens.. I want to shoot portrait, indoor sports, festival, concerts...for me, the nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrII is very expensive and it is out of my budget..im considering the sigma 70-200 f2.8 hsm II..any comments for this lens? any suggestions? pls...
Next Lense
(13 posts) (11 voices)-
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=904
ry-ka, check out this link, information that might answer your questions.
A lot of people are in the same quandry as you, you know that Nikon lens is just what you need, but you need some one on this forum who is switching over to MF and has won the lottery to let you have the glass you want.............sigh
good luck with your quest.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You might consider the 85 1.8, ry_ka, if you don't need the zoom.
Posted 2 years ago # -
if you are not planing to go fx consider the 50-150 sigma f2.8. Its a great portrait lens. Wide open at the longer end its not super sharp but the quality of the unsharpness(is there even such a word lol) is very nice for portraits. a bit like a glow around your subject. Its very sharp at 50mm as well. If I was more in to portraits I would have got it. It was a toss up between the 150 macro and this lens for me and the tele macro won out for me as I mainly shoot at the tele end and I love macro. stopped down to F4 is preety good through out its range. The best part is its got good flare control so you can take events like bands without the flare of hot lights spoiling the image.
Another interesting thing about this lens is does not change lenght when you zoom or focus so you wont get dust being sucked in into the lense. Quite cool really.Posted 2 years ago # -
Have you thought the new 28-300mm VR? Its capable of so much even though its not a pro lens it could really give you a step up in your portraits as long as you don't need 2.8. The 24-70 is great as well although its a bit of a waste on DX. The 85mm is great as Jonny mentioned. Try to stay with Nikkors if you can.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Here in the UK, What Digital Camera recently reviewed the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and said it was superb. In fact they said out of all the lenses that are made by the "after market" companies, virtually none come close to the manufactures own versions. However they went on to say, the Sigma was one of the best they had seen, and that considering it's price in comparison to the Nikon VR2, it might well be the one to go for.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi,
SkinBrit... I feel your lust. <sigh> I'm with all of you. The 70-200 will make my 'human' zoom so much easier. I'm using the 85mm and the 105mm right now and keep thinking that the 70-200 will clear up my complexion, whiten my teeth, freshen my breath - well, you know...
But, I think it likely won't. It might make getting some of the everyday event shots easier, the 17-55 does do that. And it might make framing some shoots easier, but not by too much.
When I put all my shoots in bridge and when I take out my singles and couples to shoot portraits, I use a prime.
I might get a 10.5 although I'm sort of on a both DX/FX diet, I'm saving for PC control lens, too, and a prime 300mm. Which is next? I'm just not sure. But I like seeing what others are doing.
My best to all,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
@ry_ka
Look into a VR I - even used it would be great. I'm not a fan of Sigma and found spending a bit more for Nikon gear is well worth it. For everything you described, VR would be your friend for sure.
Faster glass like the 85mm 1.8 and one of the 50mm-s and the 35mm 1.8 may actually work out better for you. Indoor sports like BB I the 85mm stops everything at F2 and keeps most of my ISOs bellow 1000.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The 70-200 (any model) doesn't really replace the 55-200, because it is in a totally different weight and size class. You can stick the 55-200 in your pocket, but you only take out the 70-200 when you really need it.
That being said, I agree with many of the remarks here, and I'd go with the Nikon 70-200 if you want one. I haven't personally had any bad experiences with Sigma lenses and the newer Sigma lenses are much better than the ones from a couple of decades ago (where they earned they "bad" reputation), but overall my impression is that the Nikon lens is better. If it was my money, I'd rather wait and save up for a really good lens than spend money now and get a lens that I'll probably want to replace later.
Posted 2 years ago # -
SkintBrit said:
Here in the UK, What Digital Camera recently reviewed the Sigma 70-200 2.8, and said it was superb. In fact they said out of all the lenses that are made by the "after market" companies, virtually none come close to the manufactures own versions. However they went on to say, the Sigma was one of the best they had seen, and that considering it's price in comparison to the Nikon VR2, it might well be the one to go for.I've played with the new sigma and it's really a great lens, although the main problem with it is it's price tag. I wouldn't go for it when I can get Nikkor 70-200/vr, they need to put a lower price tag in order to jump the sale numbers.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I too would save up to buy (and did) the Nikon lens, but the OP said this was out of his budget and wanted to know what the Sigma equivalent was like. It's a very good lens, no not as good as the Nikon, but not far short and nearly half the price. The other long term reason I have only bought Nikon glass, is that you only have to look at the second hand value of manufactures own against Sigma/Tamron etc, to see that sometimes the cheapest isn't the cheapest. But I know that's an easier thing to say if you can afford the best.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Other option... Get a used 80-200mm f2.8. I leave this lens on my D200 as it is often one of the only lenses I will shoot with for a long period of time and it only cost me $500ish off ebay. A 2.8 in that range will never do you wrong.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mike Gunter said:
Hi,SkinBrit... I feel your lust. <sigh> I'm with all of you. The 70-200 will make my 'human' zoom so much easier.
I like that Mike "human zoom"! haha thats a lot of work I think to get from 105 to 200 especially in certain spots. At least you still retain VR^^
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
