Nikon v Sigma lens

I have been seriously thinking about which 70-200mm f2.8 camera lens to get, so help would be appreciated.

I have basically narrowed it down to either the Nikon or Sigma, both have their pros and cons.

Right the Nikon lens is almost twice the price of the Sigma but is the extra cost really worth it just for VR - auto panning - dust protection etc. On the plus side I do have a 2x magnification (TC20-11E) which effectively
would give me up to 400mm at f2.8.

As for the Sigma version being a load cheaper does make it well worth having a look at, but it does have a few concerns according to DP review

Quote
Relatively weak at 200mm (softness, chromatic aberration, pincushion distortion on full frame)
Unconvincing 'macro' performance; soft at wider apertures, significant focus shift on stopping down
Red/cyan bokeh chromatic aberration

Nikon same source

Quote
"Less impressive performance on FX format - marred by soft corners and vignetting
Somewhat susceptible to flare with direct light sources in or close to the frame
Average close-up performance, especially at wide apertures "

Ok I won't be having an a camera with FX so thats out

Ok now you may ask why go for a f2.8 lens in the first place?

The main reason is with my 70-300mm Nikon lens its way too slow in focusing in some instances. Many a time I have tried to capture a bird in flight and by the time this lens focuses its too late,that is just one example.

A friend already has the Sigma and only has the highest praise for it but the Nikon lens is obviously designed especially for Nikon camera therefore should be better.

Ok I have plenty of time to decide but if any members have got used either lens I would appreciate their views on what they think even if they use the Sigma on another camera make.

Bazza

Bazza You took the words right out of my mouth.

I too have been looking at these two lens.

Look forward with interest at the thread.

It depends on what you want it for. The Nikon is pro glass, hence the build quality (21 elements/15 groups as aposed to Sigmas 18), the sharpness and Speed. Its a Nikon lens which is made for Nikon bodies so will perform at peek. The Sigma is based on different technology with a number of brands in mind. The build quality and sharpness isnt bad, but it doesnt match the nikkor glass, but you will still be more than happy with the results.

Personally the Nikkor isnt worth the extra cash over other Nikkor lenses such as the 80-200mm which is an awsome lens which should not be overlooked! However that particular lens has back focusing issues on the D200 which is a pain. That said, over the the Sigma, yes i would pay the extra.

I have already dismissed the 80-200mm Nikon lens after having ready that a switch on the lens isn't that good, from reports it breaks/fails easily, and that is from several sources.

Bazza

I too have read that the 80-200mm nikon lens has a dodgy switch.

but saying that you could pick any lens and read excellent reports and awful reports on the same lens.

Bazza, wasnt that on the original one-touch Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D? I believe Nikon have discontinued that lens now and are producing the AF-S....

The Nikon 70-200vr is considered one of the best lens out there. Whilst the Sigma is great for that price range - don't forget the Nikon lens costs almost twice as much. Perhaps if Sigma did one in that price range it would be easier to compare.

If you don't need VR, then the Sigma is one to seriously consider, but if you want VR there really is no doubt which to get!!

Let us know how you get on!