lukewoodford
FYI, I am Luke Woodford.....by Luke Woodford
- Messages
- 3,320
- Name
- Luke Woodford
- Edit My Images
- No
What are your oppinions on these two? Is the price difference of the Nikon over the Sigma worth it?
You're just looking for a fight, aren't you?
Well, for the same sort of money as the Sigma you could get a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 which is a cracking lens and imho a total bargain compared to the likes of the Sigma or even the 70-300 VR (itself a decent lens) which is "only" £2-300 less....
The 80-200 looks good but why is it £500 cheaper than the 70-200? for 10mm?
The short answer is no VR and no af-s. Apart from that their pretty similar
ok cool, i can understand where the price difference comes from then.
There might be a price difference now, but it's entirely due to fashion. The 80-200 f2.8 AF-D when it was bought out, was THE lens to have, and it was the PJ's favourite. It was then horrendously expensive and was reckoned to be the sharpest zoom lens there was. There is no reason to suspect that it is any less good now, than it was then.
OK, so it doesn't have VR, or a USM lens motor, but that will just serve to make it more reliable. These AF-D lenses represent the best that Nikon have ever made, and I doubt that viewed objectively, you would be able to see any difference in pictures taken with the AF-d or AF-S.
They are damned good looking lenses too.