Sigma vs Nikkor (70-300)

[anton_dubai]

Hello, people!
Can you help me with choosing a lens?

1. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro APO DG ($238)
2. AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G ($171)

I read really a lot of review, but they were either too positive or too negative, so I thought you will share your personal experience...

Which one should I go for, why?

[OsmosisStudios]

Save your money: get the Nikon VR version.

[kirbinster]

Ditto the above, you really need the VR at 300mm plus the optics in the VR version are far superior.

[anton_dubai]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

Ditto the above, you really need the VR at 300mm plus the optics in the VR version are far superior.

Obviously, but if only I had more than $250 for a lens... I would go for something like

Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR as a lens with good zoom

and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II as a pretty fast lens.

But for now neither I have sufficient cash, nor enough experience to buy such toys.
We do have a saying in my language however: "I am NOT RICH enough to buy CHEAP things", but... you know what I mean.

So, still which one would you choose between those two?

[anton_dubai]

Was searching for different zoom nikon-fit Sigma lenses and came across

Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 EX DG Telephoto Zoom lens - Nikon fit

Is it possible that a lens costs £18999.00?

[kirbinster]

I would not get either, VR is critical on a slow long lens unless you are always going to use it on a tripod. Why not consider the Nikon 55-200 AF-S VR - its in your price range, has VR and is not a bad lens for the money.

No it is not possible for that lens to be 19,000 pounds but it could be 1,900. Fast glass with a 500mm reach is going to run a lot of money.

[candleman]

i usedto have the Nikkor one.. (no VR)

its a piece of crap, its just useless.
the range is nice.. but to get any decent image you need to work at less than f/8


get the VR version.. better build quality and better optics

i now use a Tamron 75-300 instead.. its designed for FF so works great on a crop body.
its much better than the Nkkor "G" lens.

[firebox40dash5]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

No it is not possible for that lens to be 19,000 pounds but it could be 1,900. Fast glass with a 500mm reach is going to run a lot of money.

Sigma | 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF Autofocus Lens | 597306

No typo there!

I agree with not wasting your money on the non-VR Nikon. I have the 70-300mm VR, and can't imagine having such a long, slow lens without VR, and being able to use it anywhere but from a tripod. If you're going to buy the non-VR, at least buy a cheap used one so you can hopefully get most or all of your money back when you want to upgrade.

[anton_dubai]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

No it is not possible for that lens to be 19,000 pounds but it could be 1,900. Fast glass with a 500mm reach is going to run a lot of money.

some more off-topic:

Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 EX DG Telephoto Zoom lens - Nikon fit () - Warehouse Express
so seams like already on two sites this lense costs little less than $ 30, 000
maybe I will go for this one it doesn't look like a plastic bazooka at least ) looks more like a real one)
foto: http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...500/009477.jpg
review: http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article...amples_raw.htm


ok, guys, such attempts to convince avoid these lenses can not be simply skipped by me, will think of smth else...

[candleman]

200-500mm f/2.8 is nuts.. (just think about how wide that aperture is at 500mm..
i'd expect to pay easily that price..