- Messages
- 7,991
- Name
- Bazza
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Previously I had the Sigma version of this lens but it didn't have image stablisation (VR) on it. So very recently did a P/T exchange for this Nikon lens above . First thing I noticed it was a lot heavier than the Sigma but I prefer a heavy lens anyway. one can read up a lot about an item but until its hands on can one really see what it is all about.
This time I coupled it with my Nikon D800 and took it out for a test drive. Yes one can read all about focus speed etc etc but that does not say what it is like in the field.
I have to say the 70-200 mm is a fairly specific range to get the best out of it but will cope with different distances if pushed.
The VR is excellent and I don't have the steadiest of hands by any means and focus is rapid with no hunting. This lens is no toy and I had to develop a different shooting style to work with it. As I said it is a heavy lump to carry about all day and I did get a few nice comments from people passing by, you can't help but noticing it. What I would have liked to see is a longer collar foot it seems a bit short. What do like is the lens movement is inclosed, the length stays the same and no chance of the bellows affect to suck in dust in.
handheld and unedited (exif left to check)
Above is the distance I found it best at, but that is my opinion others may disagree.
So how does it compare with the Sigma version? I have to say my Sigma compared favourably against this Nikon lens and if on a tight budget the Sigma is well worth considering I hate to say but being honest. I did mention about weight and yes it is heavy and as long as the AF-s 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 G lens. Nit picking and yes the Nikon does come out on top but not by much. If I had the Sigma second edition with image stablisation then maybe I would have kept it and saved myself some money. Am I glad I did the P/t exchange? yes but for the reason I just gave.
I often read about the Holy trinity of Nikon lenses but now I think it is more the famous 4 that they should be known as. The 14-24mm the 24-70mm the 70-200mm and now
the 80-400mm. Unfortunately I don't have the 14-24 in my arsenal yet so have to make do with the 12-24 f1.4 DX lens on my D300.
Cost wise? yes a little over the top new compared with other 3rd party makes, but grey imports does bring the cost down if that is the road one wants to take.
length comparison
This time I coupled it with my Nikon D800 and took it out for a test drive. Yes one can read all about focus speed etc etc but that does not say what it is like in the field.
I have to say the 70-200 mm is a fairly specific range to get the best out of it but will cope with different distances if pushed.
The VR is excellent and I don't have the steadiest of hands by any means and focus is rapid with no hunting. This lens is no toy and I had to develop a different shooting style to work with it. As I said it is a heavy lump to carry about all day and I did get a few nice comments from people passing by, you can't help but noticing it. What I would have liked to see is a longer collar foot it seems a bit short. What do like is the lens movement is inclosed, the length stays the same and no chance of the bellows affect to suck in dust in.
handheld and unedited (exif left to check)
Above is the distance I found it best at, but that is my opinion others may disagree.
So how does it compare with the Sigma version? I have to say my Sigma compared favourably against this Nikon lens and if on a tight budget the Sigma is well worth considering I hate to say but being honest. I did mention about weight and yes it is heavy and as long as the AF-s 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 G lens. Nit picking and yes the Nikon does come out on top but not by much. If I had the Sigma second edition with image stablisation then maybe I would have kept it and saved myself some money. Am I glad I did the P/t exchange? yes but for the reason I just gave.
I often read about the Holy trinity of Nikon lenses but now I think it is more the famous 4 that they should be known as. The 14-24mm the 24-70mm the 70-200mm and now
the 80-400mm. Unfortunately I don't have the 14-24 in my arsenal yet so have to make do with the 12-24 f1.4 DX lens on my D300.
Cost wise? yes a little over the top new compared with other 3rd party makes, but grey imports does bring the cost down if that is the road one wants to take.
length comparison
Last edited: