Sigma 50-200 OS vs Nikon 55-200 Vr: Would appreciate any feedback, I understand that the construction of the Sigma is better then that of the Nikon, but that the Nikon lens is a bit sharper, specially at longer focal lengths.
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.
801145
I would also like to hear about this from someone who knows. I was planning on getting the kit lens and buying the 70-300mm VR Nikkor lens with it thinking that the VR technology makes them superior, but most people are very unimpressed with the kit lens. One reviewer was raving about Sigma lenses for the D90, such as Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. I am now seriously rethinking my lens purchase plan.
1562875
Both the Nikon 18-200 VR and the Sigma 18-200mm OS lenses will autofocus with other camera. The (nikon) nikkor does, but Sigma it depends on the version, the latest version works well. My does have.
1891733
I have this 105 and the 105DC both are great for portraits. I don't like the fact that this lens changes aperture when you get in closer but it does have VR.
24762
I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird... » Read More I can't speak for the Sigma, but the Nikon 18-300 DX lens is on my D7200 almost all the time. We're serious birders and I'm happy with the reach and sharpness of the Nikon lens. The 18" minimum distance focusing range from 18-300 mm is a real plus for photographing insects and flowers. The extreme light weight of the lens is a big plus as is the 18 mm wide angle for scenery. Focusing is a bit slow, especially in low light. Another comment re. the greater light gathering of the Sigma is probably spot on. I'm seriously considering buying the Sigma lens for that reason. So many bird photos are in dim dawn or sunset light or in shadow. « Show Less
24765
I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos... » Read More I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. « Show Less
885248
Really for macro work VR is pointless, and is only useful when using the lens for a short telephoto. At macro distances, you really need to use a tripod to avoid the blur. If you read the fine print on the Nikon macros with VR, they pretty much say that the benefit of VR degrades the closer you are to the subject.
1803406
I had a D40 before the D60, the D60 is MUCH better, just my personal thoughts 1-Dust, if you live in a dusty environment is a BIG ONE 2-Active D-light, Say good bye to underexposed photos, the camera produces very consistent results, not so with the D40 3-Expeed produced lower noise at higher ISO 4-THE VR Lens is SOOO much worth it, my pictures are always sharp I considered the D80, but... 1-No Active D-light "a big one" 2-more focus points yes, but you can do anything with 3 if you use them well 3-the D80 has a motor, but Nikon will be updating most of this primes to AFS this year, I tried the camera motor its slowwww 4-I was planing to get the D80+50mm 1.4 lens for low light, got the sigma 30mm 1.4 its a much better lens to keep on the camera IMHO 5-Expeed processing on the D60 seems to produce more saturated/vivid pictures vs.. D80 I shoot RAW/convert with capture NX, tried all the options, capture NX is slow and ugly, but it gives you the BEST picture period.
194931
The biggest difference with this lens isn't the VR II, but that you shouldn't get the vigetting with the FX sensor like you do with the current 70-200 f/2.8G VRI. The improvement of the VRII isn't the selling factor for this lens, its the rummor that it is more compatable with the FX. Now, whether they have fixed the vigetting on this lens is not certain, no one i know has had the chance to test it. If you have a 700, D3, or D3x, wait and see if they have fixed the problem. If you personally don't have a problem with your current lens, don't waist the money.
194933
Bill, there are a few variables... Do you plan to go to a FX sensor in the future (D700, D3)? Do you plan on hand-holding or will you be using a mono/tripod? Are you someone that must have the latest and greatest things? Personally I'm going for the VR II, I shoot a D90 now but want to have room to move to a FX camera without worrying about vignetting and edge sharpness. Plus after looking at some of the review pictures that people have posted, especially the side by side shots, I think the VR II is worth the extra $500
1041573
Are you comparing it to the lens without VR. I work for Nikon and the price was actually the same price I get with my employee discount and it didn't include the extra filters. I used the lens on my d3100 to get some incredible shots of the lunar eclipse
1186498
nothing even close to the nikon 80-400 vr. I wouldn't buy it but consider the sigma 150-500VC instead used for around 1000.00
784056
Is the 18-105 worth buying over the 18-55mm any day. Especially you going to use with D5200. If you more money why not go for 18-200mm VRII or 18-300mm VRII. They are all around lenses. Good luck!
75253
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikoni know it's been a while but that may give some insight.i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
1609776
Thank you for the excellent reply PD. What do you guys think about using the 70-200 lens with a camera that does not have a full sized sensor? I have a rebel XT and I think thats almost half the size of the 1d sensor. Still a good focal length?