Compare Sigma lens vs. Nikon Lens

[Winston_on_Truth]

I have a Nikon D5000 and would like to improve on telephoto distance shots, especially of wildlife. I like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, but at $2399.99 it is a bit pricey. A new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF (for Nikon cameras) is $799. So has a qualified and professional comparison been made for these two lens to be used on a Nikon D5000 DSLR? Thanks!

[sk66]

There are comparisons of the two online....And IMHO, anything under 400mm is a bit short for "wildlife", even with a crop body....

[inkista]

f/2.8 is nice, but not really necessary for daytime wildlife shooting. I'd actually say that looking into the 70-300 AF-S VR might be more suitable, both for the subject matter and your budget, unless you were planning on using the 70-200/2.8 for indoor portrait/event shooting and sports as well.

As sk66 says, 400mm is more useful for wildlife, but the 80-400 VR is not in the cards, since it's AF, not AF-S. And the Sigma 120-400, 150-500, or 50-500 may be more cash than you want to plunk down.

[Henry Wilt]

I have the Sigma (albeit for Canon) and I love it, it's a great lens, but I bought mine primarily for indoor sports. I agree with what both sk66 and inkista have said, it will be too short for wildlife. I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable, like these guys, to advise what you should get.

[kirbinster]

The 70-300VR is a nice lens, but it is not great for wildlife as it is not very fast and the autofocus can be slow and tends to hunt times. Why not get a used Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR-I, since you are not full frame the new version does not add much for you and you can find the older one for around $1,400 used. It is my favorite lens.

Sigma vs Nikon, well it depends on the lens and the copy you get. I have a Sigma 10-20HSM that is great. I had a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that I replaced with a Nikon -there is no comparison here the Nikon is 10 times better.