I need a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens and an 85m f1.4 but there more costly than the Sigma?

I need a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens and a 85m f1.4 but they are far more costly than the Sigma equivalent, the thing is I have a Nikon D7000 and not sure weather by using an alternative that it would damage the Camera, the other thing & I think it is the main reason, if I buy the cheaper Sigma model am I going to regret it, is there that much a difference between Nikon Lenses and the much cheaper Sigma lenes! I can't really afford the Nikon lenses but I don't want to waste money on a Sigma if there's a big deference in performance and quality. The Lens are for very fast ice skating sport and portrait in doors and out am I looking at the right lenses

I've been using Sigma lenses on my camera for years, it's exactly the same as any other lens, it won't damage the camera.

The EX range of Sigma lenses is every bit as good as Nikon's own both for build quality and optics. Not only that, but Sigma has the advantage of being able to focus closer than the Nikon equivalent.

You have to remember that prices depend on the market, Nikon lenses are more expensive because that's the price they can get and they keep getting sales, if people stopped buying them the price would drop, it's called the Canikon supplement. Nikon and Canon lenses get the prices they do because that's what the market will stand, the price does not reflect any better quality, those that pay the Canikon supplement, try to convince themselves that they are paying extra for better, but they really are not.

Other manufacturers are cheaper because they have to be because of their smaller market share, don't confuse price with quality where lenses are concerned, third party manufacturers have to try harder to get any sales at all, it's not just price they have to have better designs or at least as good.

Every Pro I know, and that's quite a few, and no matter what system they operate has a Sigma 70 - 200mm f2.8 EX lens, they're that good.

While the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a good lens, it is not a Nikon

The Sigma is well known to be not as sharp at f/2.8 @ 200mm. Also, the sigma is slower to focus than the Nikon 70-200mm AF-S, which may be important if you are doing fast action photography.

While it is true the Sigma has close focus capability, Sigma suggests it is a Macro lens - which it is not. Close-focus on the Sigma means about 4.5ft, and it is NOT not a Macro lens as it isn't capable of 1:1 magnification. It is about 1ft closer than the Nikon can focus. But you want a telephoto lens or Macro lens?

In fact, there's a lot of criticism that one reason the Sigma is softer at the telephoto end is because of the attempt at Macro.

If you want a great Nikon lens, and don't want to pay the $2, 500 price, consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8.It lacks VR and AF-S that the higher priced Nikon does, but it is a solid performer, and still outperforms the Sigma. Even though the Sigma is an AF-S type lens, the 80-200 AF Nikon focuses as fast or a bit faster, depending on your camera.

I have found that my D90 focuses the 80-200 Nikon faster than the D300.It must have something to do with the torque of the focus motor in the camera's body.

The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 has been around a long time, and is so popular that it is still being made. It was updated a couple of years ago with the addition of ED glass - which is preferred for digital photography. It is still made by Nikon as the 70-200 is just too expensive for anyone but a professional.

Be aware though that older versions of the 80-200 did have slower autofocus mechanisms, but those are identified by a push-pull zoom mechanism (you pull the lens out to zoom out - push it in to zoom in). The modern variant that Nikon still makes has the more familiar twist ring for zooming. Of the two, the zoom-ring is better as it is faster focusing.

The Nikon 80-200 is half the price of the Nikon 70-200, and only a bit more than the Sigma. When I bought mine a few months ago, there was no contest between the two; the Nikon was superior.

Consider this…

A new Nikon goes for about $1, 100. A 10 year old Nikon 80-200 still goes used for $900, about the same price as a new Sigma. A Sigma, just a couple of years old goes for about $500.

Must be some reason why the Sigma does not keep it's value…