Nikon vs Sigma (70-200 2.8 & 1.4 teleconverter)

[garris3404]

I'm looking to compare the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR with the Nikon 1.4 teleconverter to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro with the Sigma 1.4 telecoverter. The Nikon package is about $2000 while the Sigma package is about $1100. Does anyone have this equipment? Any feedback and advice is quite appreciated. Thanks!

 

[tinksdad]

I have the Nikon lens and it's pro glass. Clear, sharp, fast and heavy. Haven't used the Sigma so I could't speak to their quality. But I'm VERY happy with the Nikon. I've made the commitment to stay with Nikon glass since I've been very happy with the overall quality and build.

Check the Nikon


Check the Sigma

 

[ukcatfan]

I'm looking to compare the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR with the Nikon 1.4 teleconverter to the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro with the Sigma 1.4 telecoverter. The Nikon package is about $2000 while the Sigma package is about $1100. Does anyone have this equipment? Any feedback and advice is quite appreciated. Thanks!

I am not familiar with Nikon, but based on your descriptions, it looks like the Nikon lens has IS and the Sigma does not. If that is correct, that explains the $$$ difference. If that is correct, do you think you need the IS or not? If my math is correct, you would end up with 420mm, so to me the IS would be nice to have.

Kevin

 

[handicap18]

I've been reading up on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 because I don't think I'll be able to afford the Nikon version, either the 70-200 f/2.8 VR or the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S ($1700 and $1100 respectively vs about $850 or so). There is an 80-200 f/2.8 AF, but the focusing isn't as fast, thus its a few hundred less than the AF-S version.

I've seen a few reviews on the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 recently in some of the UK mag's. They all give it very positive reviews. I don't know for sure if the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is $900 better than the Sigma. Granted the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR is one of THE best Nikon lenses and anyone who shoots Nikon would love to have one, but it also is $1700.

As for the teleconverters. The Sigma's are good, especially with a Sigma lens. No matter which 1.4TC you go with you will lose 1 stop, so with it on the f/2.8 actually becomes f/4. Which is still pretty good for that range especially on a digital body with the 1.5x crop factor. I think for this lens range a 1.4TC is a good thing to have, definately cheeper than getting the 200-400 f/4 VR (which runs about $5K).

As for the VR with the 1.4TC, I know I've read about the combo together, but I don't recall what the vertict is (does the VR still works effectivly or not, I think it does, but I don't want to say for sure) so be sure to look into that before buying. You can probably do a quick search on nikonians.org under the Nikkor Lenses forum. I think that is where I've seen it discussed.

Happy shopping.

 

[jann1033]

know nothing about nikon anything but i have seen better ratings pretty much across the board for kenko pro 1.4 teleconverters( i have canon but i think only the mount is different.) i know the tamron only lets you use f4 and up lenses i think ( maybe even wider as i didn't think i could use it on one of my lenses)..also it may be the kenko fits more lenses than the sigma as well( don't remember at this moment) i did just read a nikon teleconverter vs kenko teleconverter( pro) on epinions and they said the kenko was great
http://www.epinions.com/content_82745200260