Nkon 70-200mm f2.8 VR2+ convertor VSigma 50-500mm

[RonP]

Nikon 70-200 f2.8 ED VR2 + 2converter Versus Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 ED To be used on my D300s

Has anyone ever done a comparison of the above two lens.

I currently have the Sigma 50-500mm old version non VR and I am finding it extremely heavy now due to a heart condition and was wondering how the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and a 2x or 1.7x Convertor would be in comparison, thinking of perhaps looking for a second hand one.

Would be interested to hear from anyone who has both lenses or has done a test.

I understand the 70-200 would be a f5.6 lens compared to the Sigma f4 but its very rare that I get to use f4 on this lens unless I am using a very high ISO and then the noise level is not very good for quality images.

Any comments appreciated.

[Mikeakabigman]

Hi Ron,
I have both the old non VR Sigma bigma and the 70-200mm Nikon f2.8 VR1 with a 1.7 tc. Using them on my Nikon D300

I can say with out doubt my Nikon is streets ahead of the Sigma with regard to IQ, It also focusses faster and more accurately.
I've not looked at the weights but am fairly sure  that the Nikon plus TC is lighter (you may want to check the specs though)

[RockArea]

I was just posting when the forum told me another post had been made. Great that Mike can do a direct comparison. I'll put my twopennyworth in anyway.

I can't make the comparison you ask for, Ron, but I can tell you that my experience with a non-VR Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is very good and on occasions I team it up with a x1.4 convertor giving me f4 throughout the range. I find this set up performs much better than my Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6 with optical stabilisation.

David

[Chocky]

I have to agree with Mike . I ghave a sigma dg 70-300mm APO macro and yet my Nikon Dx SWm ED 55-200m takes far better photos and yes much faster and quieter
I have a 1.5 X Teleplus and a 2X Teleplus converters but I don't use them much

[Seven_Wishes]

the f2.8 is quite a heavy lens adding a converter and you may not notice much of an overall difference between the two ... adding another piece of glass between the camera body and the lens is more likely to magnify any flaws and increase distortion ... (especially with x2 converter) going off my experience with a Canon 70-200 f4 l IS and a Canon EF Mark III 1.4x Extender, chromatic aberration is more noticeable ... having said that it does work better on prime lenses

[Chocky]

With my two Sigma apo Lenses the first one  seized up just after a year and cost £70 to be reconstructed and the new on (Identical) the gears went after 6 mnths

[Mikeakabigman]

Yes now you mention it Beryl, my Sigma fell apart on two occasions, once when on the Farnes, part of the rear assembly came away and hit the rocks, fortunately nothing broke and I was able to pick up all the parts and put them back together.
Another time a small screw came loose within the barrel lock assembly and jammed itself in the focussing mechanism, causing some scratches to the lens barrel, again I managed  to get the screw out and put it back !
The lens is a bit scarred but still operates fine.
It has been quite a temperamental bit of kit, it doesn't like filters, and hunts for focus when one is attached, even an expensive one !

With regard to TC's, yes I agree they can cause some optical degradation, but I have to say with my Nikon 1.7 and 70-200 combo, I've been very pleased and not noticed any distortion/fringing etc.

[Chocky]

I once slipped and smashed my 17 300 sigma beyond repairer and had to save up for a new lens and went back to my Nikon 200 swm and was getting so much clearer pictures
and yes they seam to have a mind of their own when it comes to filters.
I'm going to use my Nikon lens for a while an see if I can do better. thee last few outings have proved disappointing with most of my photos just going in the bin. I was looking through the Gallery and some of my older photos taken with the Nikon- 200mm are much better and as for Tamron I have a 70-300mm macro and it is so slow and noisy, it's back in it's box.

I have a UV filter  but am wondering if a polarizer wouldn't be better if I remember to turn it in time to the right position

[RonP]

Thanks for the feed back folks, appreciated.

Well its looking good for a 70-200mm, just need to check out the weights first and then of course need to check with the boss on the state of the funds.
The Sigma has been a good lens and I have had some great results, like Mike stated I had the same problem with the screw coming out of the barrel and locking the lens, and cursed it as I was in a hide and this bloke said Great spotted on feeder in tree, went to zoom and no movement .
I may consider hiring the kit first for a couple of days depending on cost before committing to the expense,and just see if its suitable, need to do something as the Bigma just sits in the bag now and I miss not being able to do my wildlife.
Just searched and found that there is only 95 grams difference the Nikon being lighter.
Will let you know how I get on.
Perhaps may be some special offers at Focus.

Thanks

[Chocky]

I decided to take my Nikon SWM 55-200 today and every photo I took was a winner. Coal tits. Goldfinch  pinching spiders nests for their nests
I was amazed. No Purple tinging  which sigma APO is supposed to eliminate . So I went to to inquire about the  Nikon SWM 70-300 mm no APO or Macro . I was talking to the chap in the shop( I know him well) and he said he's heard about  Sigma  coming away from th the barrel. Mine just grated and  grounded to a halt literally .

Good luck Ron

[RonP]

Popped down to the NEC to the Focus show yesterday, my first visit to a photography show to see what deals or bargains were to be had on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2 lens and a convertor, what a disappointment, tried to get to view the lens and convertor fitted to a D300s on the Nikon stand to compare weight etc, waste of time as they told me they did not have a D300s on the stand after trying for about twenty minutes to get someone to talk to you.

Don't think I will be going to another one. did anyone pay a visit.

[Chocky]

That looks to be a really nice lens Ron
 
My sigmas that have been re constucted or what ever they do when the lens grinds to a halt , now let in light and most of my birds have ourple edgings and The Tamron is so slow it almost goes backwards. I have a n old Nikon 70-300 and it. noisy but is much faster then either of the sigmas and Tamron. a lot of Chromatic light aberation as well. My 55-200  ens is very fast to focus  and quiet. I'm looking to get the same in 70-300mm soon. I won't be buyin any more Sigmas or Tamron lense
 

[RockArea]

Popped down to the NEC to the Focus show yesterday, my first visit to a photography show to see what deals or bargains were to be had on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2 lens and a convertor, what a disappointment, tried to get to view the lens and convertor fitted to a D300s on the Nikon stand to compare weight etc, waste of time as they told me they did not have a D300s on the stand after trying for about twenty minutes to get someone to talk to you.

Don't think I will be going to another one. did anyone pay a visit.

That sounds disappointing, Ron. I've not been to camera shows but I suppose it's all about what manufacturers want to sell and I of course the D300s is on its way out. You'd probably be better off seeing if you can try that lens and converter on your own camera at a dealer.

David

[scoundrel1728]

Don't be too hasty to write off third-party lenses.  You can't necessarily expect a (comparatively) low-priced third-party lens to perform up to a much higher-priced one from another manufacturer.  You can also expect to trade off something to get an especially long zoom range in a lens, not the least of which is speed (light gathering power) at the telephoto end and general optical performance near one or both ends of the zoom range.  In hobbyist-grade telephoto zooms especially, the optical performance often falls off fast as you approach the telephoto end of the zoom range, whether major manufacturer or third-party.

I have also found that the better Sigma and Tamron lenses can typically hold their own when compared to their similarly priced Canon or Nikon counterparts, assuming that Canon or Nikon make anything close.  My Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is actually very good optically.  It might not perform quite up to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L; then again, I can buy two Tamrons for the price of one Canon and still have change left over.

As for the Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO, its cost is USD1659 at B&H, is 218mm long, and has a mass of 1960 g.  The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II plus TC-20E III teleconverter is slightly longer but (very slightly) lighter at 1870 g and, going by Mike's and David's reports, is likely to have much better optical performance.  (Not that the Sigma is especially bad in this regard; the "bigma" is such a popular lens in part because its optical performance is especially good for its prize and zoom range.)  Perhaps the USD2896 price tag for the Nikon lens plus converter can help move the scales by considerably lightening the load imposed by your wallet.

[Chocky]

I bought this one today

Nikon 55-300mm VR F4.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX NIKKOR



Quite pleased with it as well. Had to be very quick to grab this. There it was then gone

[RonP]

Nice buy Beryl, cracking shot of the wren, nice and sharp. :thumb up:

Ron

[Chocky]

Thanks Ron.
I'a really pleased You can also switch the VR off