Which >200mm F2.8?

I

insertusernamehere

Messages
1,598
Name
Adam (if you couldn't guess...)
Edit My Images
No
*edit* should be <=200 mm!

OK I've done my research and read plenty of reviews but what is YOUR opinion?

I am an amateur photographer with a D90 and take photos at point-to-points and other sports such as mountain biking and kayaking, for everything else I have my sigma 17-70OS which I am very happy with.

I just parted with my Sigma 120-300 F2.8 as it just wasn't flexible enough missing the 70-120 range and the 200-300 range was nice but not really needed.

Given the sports I need the F2.8, but VR / OS isn't a necessity (although I will be going to a few friends weddings and take photos of pets etc)

So, as I can see it my options are (used):

£ 300-350 Sigma 70 - 200 VI
£350-450 Sigma 70 - 200 VII
£450ish Nikon 80 - 200 D (latest)
£600 ish Nikon 80 - 200 AF-S
£900-1100 Nikon 70 - 200 VR I

But I am very open to any other suggestions.

I *think* the Sigma 70 -200 VII is going to be the best choice and will leave me with a bit of ££ to play with, but would the 80 - 200 D be a better choice ?

Adam
 
Last edited:
i would go with the 80-200 afs but it depends if your budget can stretch to a nikon 70-200.
forget the sigmas in my opinion. the nikons are best!
 
I put a bit more thought into this and I'm going to aim to keep the budget to £500 which leaves me with the sigma or the Nikon 80-200 D version.
I do like sigma lenses a lot and I'd be able to get a much newer one than I would of the nikon, is the nikon glass that much better?
 
Also consider the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, that wider end might come in useful. The non-OS version has been discontinued but you should be able to find a few second-hand, and if not the OS should be coming out fairly soon, if a little delayed due to the situation in Japan
 
Nikon 80-200 D (new) it is then!
The 50-150 would leave me too short at the long end
 
I just bought the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for £470 and the limited tests ive done are cracking. Seems a very capable lens which ill be using for indoor sports stuff.
 
I've just brought a sigma 70-200 f2.8 from here for £210. I was originally looking at the Nikon 80-200 but I thought for that price it was too good to miss.

I really only shoot portraits of my kids with my d90 so spending silly money was not an option

Sent from my Nexus One using TP Forums
 
cobra_lite said:
Yes it is, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

It's not that much better.

The sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is a stunning lens. Sure, the Nikon is supposed to be the better lens but I'm not sure side by side you'll really notice.

Do you really want to pay considerably more for just a marginal improvement?
 
Last edited:
Damnit, I really need my access to the classifieds back!!
I would have had the sigma at that price.

I bought one for the missus @ £280 and its good, its better than my tamron 70-210 and not quite as good as the Sigma 120-300 but all the others I have seen go for silly money, £350 or so... so it just seemed sensible to spend the extra £150 odd and get the Nikon!
 
I managed to get an 80-200 AF-S at a reasonable price so hopefully its the right decision!!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's not that much better.

The sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is a stunning lens. Sure, the Nikon is supposed to be the better lens but I'm not sure side by side you'll really notice.

Do you really want to pay considerably more for just a marginal improvement?
Click to expand...

:plusone:
 
odd jim said:
It's not that much better.
Click to expand...

Says who?

odd jim said:
The sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is a stunning lens. Sure, the Nikon is supposed to be the better lens but I'm not sure side by side you'll really notice.

Do you really want to pay considerably more for just a marginal improvement?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Marginal to you maybe. Nikon and Canon's optical- and build-quality is still considerably better than Sigma as far as I'm concerned when it comes to their zooms.
It may cost more, but I'm also buying peace of mind.

Primes are another matter - by many accounts, the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is almost as good as the Canon 85 f/1.2L and the old Nikon 85 f/1.4 and not far behind the new Nikkor 85 f/1.4G


In all my (40-odd) years of photography, the only people I've come across who buy third-party lenses are those who can't afford to buy Canon or Nikon.
Sugar-coat it as much as you like - third-party lenses are the budget option and always will be.
Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.
 
Last edited:
cobra_lite said:
Says who?

Yes.

Marginal to you maybe. Nikon and Canon's optical- and build-quality is still considerably better than Sigma as far as I'm concerned when it comes to their zooms.
It may cost more, but I'm also buying peace of mind.

Primes are another matter - by many accounts, the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is almost as good as the Canon 85 f/1.2L and the old Nikon 85 f/1.4 and not far behind the new Nikkor 85 f/1.4G

In all my (40-odd) years of photography, the only people I've come across who buy third-party lenses are those who can't afford to buy Canon or Nikon.
Sugar-coat it as much as you like - third-party lenses are the budget option and always will be.
Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

Says me.
 
cobra_lite said:
Jim, you wouldn't have shares in Sigma by any chance? :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol no, look at my lens line up, it's 95% canon!

Sigma do have a few gens though, which is why I bought the 70-200!
 
I do like the sigma lenses, the 17-70 OS is a fantastic walk about lens, but as said the IQ can be a bit hit and miss, and buying second hand there isn't as much flexibility if you hit a problem.
That said I am sure there is the odd duff 80-200 out there but the risk is lower, for the little I paid over a used 70-200 sigma, the 80 - 200 was the natural choice!

Plus I love the idea of the AF lock buttons on the lens!
 
Last edited:
Adam - think you made a good decision there. The 80-200 AF-D I had was a peach, only sold it because the VR of the 70-200 was going to be a big help in low light. And yep, those focus lock buttons are very handy indeed :)
 
Snip

cobra_lite said:
Says who?



In all my (40-odd) years of photography, the only people I've come across who buy third-party lenses are those who can't afford to buy Canon or Nikon.
Sugar-coat it as much as you like - third-party lenses are the budget option and always will be.
Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.
Click to expand...


I would agree with you 20 years ago, but I think the difference these days are a lot less noticeable, I could afford the Nikon 70-200 when I brought my sigma 70-200 but for the cost difference double the price, the image quality was not twice as good. I also looked at the 80-200 and again slightly better but still not worth the price difference.

To the OP the 80-200 is a nice lens but so is the sigma.
 
cobra_lite said:
Says who?



Yes.

Marginal to you maybe. Nikon and Canon's optical- and build-quality is still considerably better than Sigma as far as I'm concerned when it comes to their zooms.
It may cost more, but I'm also buying peace of mind.

Primes are another matter - by many accounts, the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is almost as good as the Canon 85 f/1.2L and the old Nikon 85 f/1.4 and not far behind the new Nikkor 85 f/1.4G


In all my (40-odd) years of photography, the only people I've come across who buy third-party lenses are those who can't afford to buy Canon or Nikon.
Sugar-coat it as much as you like - third-party lenses are the budget option and always will be.
Anyone who says otherwise is just deluding themselves.
Click to expand...

+1
i've just bought nikon 70-200mm. It's a cracking lens. But for your requirement you may require bit more of zoom but then you can always buy TC later!
 
I love the 80-200!!!
However! Compared to the sigma 70-200 f2.8 Version 1, for my amateur needs there isn't a huge amount of difference so I am actually tempted to downgrade to that!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top