Why would anyone buy this Sigma over the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8??

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100827...200mmnikon.asp

Have you seen any tests comparing these lenses? How do you know the
Sigma isn't a better lens?

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100827...200mmnikon.asp

Have you seen any tests comparing these lenses? How do you know the
Sigma isn't a better lens?


It could be. Sigma makes some very high priced lenses. But, after some
personal experience with them, which I recently posted here, it would take a
lot of convincing to get me even to put another Sigma on any of my cameras.

--
Peter

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:31:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Aug 27, 7:52*pm, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100827...200mmnikon.asp

Have you seen any tests comparing these lenses? How do you know the
Sigma isn't a better lens?

Don't make me laugh.

I didn't think you knew which one was better, much less offer any
proof.

I'm shocked.