New Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Old Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1

[sdspinelli2]

So I should be buying a Sigma 70-200 2.8 in the next few weeks and I just came across an idea. Would I get better image quality from the new Sigma or a second hand Nikon 70-200 vr1? Also the vr1 is af-s so it should auto focus on a d3100, am I right?

[gonzalu]

Yes on both counts :)

I refuse to give up my VRI copy BECAUSE it is so sharp... damn thing just works well. Look at my pics on A.net or JP.net, about 99% shot with that lens and TC17 ...

YMMV with the Sigma but I hear is good. Eric shotos that lens (The Sigma, I think) and gets great results on his Canon copy.

[captmjk16]

I think it'll come down to which copy of the lens you get. I've seen some pretty dang good Sigma shots, and I've also see Manny's masterpieces.

Depending on who you ask or what charts you look at, the newest Sigma is supposed to be a dead heat with the VR1 Nikkor in the sharpness department. Spending that much money on a lens I feel like I'd end up with the Sigma (or the new Tamron VC) simply for the fact that it's close if not ahead in IQ and it will have a decent warranty, plus it's still got that new gear smell.

[sdspinelli2]

Thanks for your help guys. I think I am probably going to get the sigma because of all the benefits from a new lens.

[captmjk16]

I think Manny (or most of the site for that matter) can probably answer better than I can, but would I be correct in assuming that (generally speaking) even a "soft" copy of a decent 70-200 2.8 will be a hell of a lot sharper than a 70-300 4-5.6 at equivalent focal lengths??

I can't wait to see what you can do with the Sigma, it's at the top of the list for my next lens as of now (competing with the new Tamron VC and a Bigma). Now to win the lottery...

[Zee71]

I had the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI and it is one heck of a lens. I upgraded to a VRII and it is a killer lens as well. As long as the glass is not scratched, no mold, and the auto focus and VR are working, you shouldn't have and issues.

[megatop412]

I think Manny (or most of the site for that matter) can probably answer better than I can, but would I be correct in assuming that (generally speaking) even a "soft" copy of a decent 70-200 2.8 will be a hell of a lot sharper than a 70-300 4-5.6 at equivalent focal lengths??

I can't wait to see what you can do with the Sigma, it's at the top of the list for my next lens as of now (competing with the new Tamron VC and a Bigma). Now to win the lottery...

I was under the impression that, at f/8, there isn't a whole lot of difference in sharpness between the 70-300 and 70-200 and that it would be hard to tell the difference between shots taken by the lenses at that f stop. That's how I talked myself out of spending $2300. The strength of the 70-200 is its ability to remain sharp as one opens the lens up to larger apertures. So the 70-300 wide open(f/4) would of course be noticeably softer than the professional 70-200 at f/4, and even wide open the pro tele remains sharp. I always shoot my 70-300 at f/8, when it gets dark I raise the ISO. I don't get sucked into the whole noise debate especially when it is minimal

[captmjk16]

Apparently the Sigma 2.8 was on sale over the weekend for $999, I completely missed it, but I hope someone was able to if they were in the market...