Nikon telephoto lens help!

alexisonfire

alexisonfire

Messages
1,076
Name
Mike Simpson
Edit My Images
Yes
Having recently sold off my last telephoto lens, either Christmas/January i will be looking to replace this focal length with some quality glass. My choices so far are as followed...

Sigma HSM 70-200mm f/2.8
Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8
Nikon AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8

There was only two contenders up until tonight, when i discovered the AF-S 80-200. It seems like the bridge i was looking for between the 80-200 AF version and the 70-200 VR. These things seem to be rare as hell though. I have only found one for sale, and it was 2nd hand @ a price of £700 (might as well save a little more for the 70-200 VR). Is this price normal, and if not, what would you expect to pay 2nd hand?

Now, going back to the AF 80-200 and the HSM 70-200. I can get these for pretty much the same price, £480 & £450 respectively. The 80-200 is the sharpest zoom nikon have ever made, but the 70-200 has a wider focal range, and HSM (should mean faster AF?). Theres also the build quality, i heard the nikon is built like a tank.

So my main questions are:

Is the 80-200 noticeable sharper than the sigma 70-200, and can it be used with a 1.4x TC and remain AF?

Will the AF on the 70-200 be noticeable faster than the 80-200?

Cheers!
 
I have the sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 and I am very pleased with it. It works very well with the sigma 1.4 TC.
However if I was starting again I would try to stretch to the more expensive nikon 70 - 200 f2.8 VR. I have no experience of the 80 - 200 nikons.
 
I've owned the 80 - 200 AF-S which was my first sports telephoto. As you've already gathered - it's built like a tank! It's very heavy compared to the Sigma 70-200 and the Nikon 70-200VR (which I currently own).

The AF is slower than the Sigma for sure. However, the pictures are incredibly sharp. I noticed some CA on the Sigma lens too when shooting in bright daylight whereas the NIkon I never ever experienced this.

For me personally, i'd be starting the the 80-200 and then, if needs must move up to the 70-200. You benefit from the extra focal length I agree, but between the Sigma and Nikon 70-200 i'd be wanting the Nikon (y)

Hope this is of some use.
 
I've never used the 1.4TC on the 80-200 so cannot comment on that. I'm sure a quick google would uncover that for you
 
Don't be confused between the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 and Nikon AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8. The AF-S is rare as a rocking horse log so good luck finding one. I managed to find one at Grays of Westminster but they are not cheap, at all; not even second hand!

The AF-D 80-200mm can be bought for about £500, new. The AF-S version was about £750, second hand, when I looked at Grays of Westminster.

Edit: I've just realised you know about the above! :LOL: Moving on...

I've trialed both the Sigma 70-200 HSM and I have the Nikon 70-200mm VR. The Sigma is the same price as the AF 80-200mm, and the Nikon is the most expensive at a tad below £1k.

Sigma HSM pros:
Half the price of the Nikon 70-200mm VR
Just as quick to AF
I'd say almost as sharp as the Nikon

Cons:
It didn't feel as solid
The tripid "jubilee clip" is too bulky for me and makes it look cheap and ugly


Nikon pros:
It feels very solid and stong
Again, very quick to focus and very sharp
VR - I do find it useful at times of sports photography
Tripod "jubilee clip" is neat and tidy. Also the tripod latch can be taken off to tidy it up

Nikon cons:
A tad more expensive

I wasn't sure if I could justify spending another £500 on what I thought could be the same lens but I bit the bullet and went for it. After using the Sigma, it didn't convince me and even after day one with the Nikon, I was extremely happy to have purchased it.

If you can get there; Jessops superstore in Hedge End have quite a lot. It's where I went to have a play with the Sigma HSM and Nikon VR.
 
Thanks for that Shak, cleared quite a bit up. Unfortunally i can't justify the cost of the Nikon 70-200, as i don't use the focal length enough to warrant spending that much money. I would say 10% of my photos are taken in that range, so i just want something thats relatively high quality, without costing a fortune!

I think im settled on the Sigma 70-200, but keep getting drawn in by the Nikon 80-200's prestige. I think a good testing is in order (y)
 
The Sigma is a fine lens. They are excellent optically and very well made indeed.
 
Well I tried the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 today, unfortunately they didn't have a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 in stock.

My first impressions of the sigma were excellent. It felt extremely well made, the focus and zoom ring were brilliant, not too lose, not too stiff, just right. Felt very well balanced on the D80+grip, and surprisingly didn't feel that heavy. Focusing was very fast and almost silent too. But I'm afraid this is were the good points stopped. After getting home and checking out the photos I took (only had enough card space for 5-6 photos, doh!), they were really bad. Im 100% sure its not camera shake, mainly because all the lines line up correctly. The lens was insanely soft at f/2.8, almost so much that I'm sure it must of been a duff copy. Even at f/4 and f/6.3 I would still class the IQ as unacceptable. They only had one nikon fit in stock, so I couldn't try another copy. I've lost complete interest now, and think I'm going to go for the 80-200 as I know I'm guaranteed with an excellent copy.

Shame really :/
 
Nevermind, mate. When I tried out the Sigma, I was actually quite pleased with it. Sharpness wise, I didn't think it was any worse than the 70-200mm, or rather any less quality. Although I could only judge by a few photos, it didn't seem to put me off, until I decided I had to get the top dog and be smug about it lol.
 
Shak said:
Nevermind, mate. When I tried out the Sigma, I was actually quite pleased with it. Sharpness wise, I didn't think it was any worse than the 70-200mm, or rather any less quality. Although I could only judge by a few photos, it didn't seem to put me off, until I decided I had to get the top dog and be smug about it lol.
Click to expand...

Yeah i realise i probably just got a duff copy (sigma quality control issues), but i just went through all that with my 24-70, sending lens back to get a sharp copy. I really can't be bothered to do it again with the 70-200! But then again, im not too sure on the 80-200 either :p I know its probably the better lens, but for some reason i want the sigma. Anybody want to lend me £500 so i can screw it all and the 70-200 VR? :LOL::LOL:
 
Not sure if this is any help but I have the Sigma 70-200 in Canon flavour that I bought SH from another member and it's very sharp. In fact so sharp that the person who sold it has admitted that he almost wishes he'd kept it as it's as good as his L series(y)

As you say...you probably picked up a duff copy..and that can happen with any lens be it from Sigma, Canon or Nikon. It's worth checking out some more Sigma 70-200's to see if you can find one like mine;)
 
If it were me, again, I'd wait and get the VR. But saying that, I needed something sh*t hot for my main line of 'togging, so I didn't hesitate until after I tried them both out.
 
I can't justify the cost of the 70-200 VR at my level of photography unfortunately. I will try and get my mits on another copy of the sigma 70-200 as i really like this lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top