DSLRUsers.com

HI Guys can any users help in selection of a 70-200 f2.8 lens,I use a D700 with a D300 backup.Main lens at this stage is a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with 1.4tc. I am looking second hand and both lens are about the same price--$1000-1200
The sigma reviews well but the Nikon is older -the Nikon is the old non VR version
The Sigma is new and Nikon s/h .....thanks
in motion

I wasn't aware that Nikon made a non VR 70-200?? I have the Nikon 80-200 2.8 which I bought after selling my 70-200VR. It is one of the push pull variety and is a very sharp lens. You can get a very good second hand one for $600 to $800 and they are excellent value for money. Nikon made several versions of the 80-200 and all are good performers. Whilst I have owned Sigma lenses I have not tried their version of this lens.

I also wasn't aware there was a non VR Nikon 70-200 and guess it is probably a misquote by the seller. The 80-200 is a tremendous lens but would expect it to be cheaper than your quoted prices, except the AFS version, which is quite rare, most are AF. The Sigma is an excellent lens and there is a comparison on this site somewhere. I would rate both lens as excellent, though I remember a few question marks raised about the Nikkor 70-200 wide open when used full frame.


Here is the link to one review about the lens on FX http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_ ... FS70-200VR

Glen wrote:I also wasn't aware there was a non VR Nikon 70-200 and guess it is probably a misquote by the seller. The 80-200 is a tremendous lens but would expect it to be cheaper than your quoted prices, except the AFS version, which is quite rare, most are AF. The Sigma is an excellent lens and there is a comparison on this site somewhere. I would rate both lens as excellent, though I remember a few question marks raised about the Nikkor 70-200 wide open when used full frame.


Here is the link to one review about the lens on FX http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_ ... FS70-200VR

The 80-200 AF-S is a great lens if you can find one. Very fast and very sharp.

The 70-200 VR is better and on FF is still stellar. Despite the odd report there is only minor vignetting usually only when shooting wide open landscape style shots. Its no big deal.

never heard of a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 non-VR

nor has the "great Mr Rockwell" http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm

nor has "Mr Hogan" http://bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

But if it were a 70-200mm VR at that price I'd get the NIkkor.

Thanks Guys, There was a mistake--MINE!!! the lens is a 80-200 afs so the query is this lens S?H at 1200 compared to a new Sigma at near the same price--thanks--inmotion

inmotion wrote:Thanks Guys, There was a mistake--MINE!!! the lens is a 80-200 afs so the query is this lens S?H at 1200 compared to a new Sigma at near the same price--thanks--inmotion

The AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8, a rare beast it is. I have to admit that I have experience with neither, but i would probably swing towards the Nikkor.

A few members did a side by side test of the 70-200 Nikkor and the 70-200 Sigma. From memory there was very little difference optically. The main advantage is the VR.

At the moment lots of major retailers seem to have the 70-200 Sigma at $899 new which seems a steal to me.

The one advantage the 70-200 sigma has over the 80-200 Nikon is the HSM of the sigma. How much better this is in real life????

Good luck.

MATT

IM, definitely a rare beast the AFS 80-200, only ever focussed one once myself so don't have real life experience, but Kiwi's comments rate it well, as do many users. I was involved in the Sigma V Nikon 70-200 shootout, I thought both were excellent. The Sigma HSM = Nikon AFS. Based upon Matt's cost of $900, I would get the Sigma. Will be interesting to see what others think.

MATT wrote:At the moment lots of major retailers seem to have the 70-200 Sigma at $899 new which seems a steal to me.

Yes, there's a new version of the lens released, the new version is advertised as having 'improved optical performance' and is lighter at 1.37kg. The older heavier version is being discounted, it is 1.38kg and looks remarkably identical with the same number of lenses and groups and it is the same physical size wth the same tripod mount.

MATT wrote:At the moment lots of major retailers seem to have the 70-200 Sigma at $899 new which seems a steal to me.

From dpreview, the Sigma lens release history:

* 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO - Original version, minimum focus distance 1.8m (1999)
* 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG - Adds 'digitally optimized' lens coatings to reduce flare (2005)
* 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (HSM) - Minimum focus distance reduced to 1m (2006)
* 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II - Improved optical performance (2007)

I bought the latest one recently for $950 in Adelaide, but the same retailer said this week that the price had risen to $1400 because of the weak Aussie dollar. If I had seen a Nikon 80-200 AF-S for around $1000 I would have jumped at it over the Sigma. It's a great lens, but not as good as the Nikon. I do love the removable tripod collar on the Sigma though.

I was unfortunately responsible for the demise of a rare 80-200 af-s a couple years ago now.

I have had since a Sigma 50-150 and a 120-300 but not a Sigma 70-200

My view though that if you get a good copy the Sigma is almost as good as the Nikkor glass. 95% as good probably. So for most the decision is whether that 5% is worth the premium.

Certainy I have found the HSM as good as AF-S

Well how good is this not just a snotty nosed sales rep telling me every lens is the best.Suffice to say the sigma is GOOD bearing in mind how highly rated the nikor is.How about some names as at under 1000 new the sigma is probably in front--cheers-inmotion

inmotion wrote::D Well how good is this not just a snotty nosed sales rep telling me every lens is the best.Suffice to say the sigma is GOOD bearing in mind how highly rated the nikor is.How about some names as at under 1000 new the sigma is probably in front--cheers-inmotion

The MOST important thing is to quickly assess the quality of the Sigma you get by doing some focus tests etc. Quality control seems the biggest problem.

And remember that the Sigma 70-200 also can get lockup if used in too hot a weather. (And before everyone cries, Yes I have experienced this recently on a brand new lens) cooled it down and prob goes away.. Talk about tight tolerances...
Whereas a Nikkor wont lockup ever, I have used mine is hotter weather than I would ever expect it to be happy in.

Team Piggy,
Ive never heard of the lock up problem your talking about. I have a 70-200 on my 30D and just recently went to Willowbank drags in 40 degree + days and WSID boxing day same temps and not a problem at all with the lens. When i was not taking pics is was sitting ontop of my camera bag in full sun.I think its a great lens for the price.

team piggy wrote:And remember that the Sigma 70-200 also can get lockup if used in too hot a weather. (And before everyone cries, Yes I have experienced this recently on a brand new lens) cooled it down and prob goes away.. Talk about tight tolerances...
Whereas a Nikkor wont lockup ever, I have used mine is hotter weather than I would ever expect it to be happy in.

How hot are we talking? I use it all the time at my parents place in country SA where it routinely tops 45 in summer, never once had this problem you have described.