DSLRUsers.com

The price is very similar for either one, which way would you go

Nikon 80-200 2.8 or Sigma 70-200 2.8?

I haven't noticed much in terms of optical quality but build quality probably Nikon. If you want the additional 10mm, then go the Sigma.

A thought Philip, do you plan to use a TC? The Sigma mates well with its TC, Nikon don't have a current TC to mate with theirs (though Kenko, etc do).

Glen wrote:A thought Philip, do you plan to use a TC? The Sigma mates well with its TC, Nikon don't have a current TC to mate with theirs (though Kenko, etc do).

Actually yes, Glen
I never thought about that, I had assumed that the same TC for the nikon 70-200VR would have been ok on their 80-200.

Philip only with the AFS 80-200 which isn't current, otherwise in manual mode on the AF 80-200. Kenko offer Af on their TC.


Resale is probably the same, as the 80-200 is at the end of the model life and the market would be diluted by earlier models, whilst Sigma normally has slightly lower resale.

I'm very happy with my Sigma...

Which version of the 80-200 you are refering to??

There are at least 3 versions of it... the push-pull, ED no collar, ED with collar, and AF-S versions of the 80-200/2.8

I'd go nikon for build, and touch a feel.

However, I would look carefully at your needs. If a TC is on your radar, the comptability should come into consideration now.

Yi-P wrote:Which version of the 80-200 you are refering to??

There are at least 3 versions of it... the push-pull, ED no collar, ED with collar, and AF-S versions of the 80-200/2.8

Whichever is the current new one available in our bargain section.

Philip, all my comments apply to the latest AF version as in bargains, and in fact all previous models excluding the AFS version.

Thanks Glen and everyone else for your input. At this stage the sigma is looking pretty good. I have 2 sigma lenses, the 10-20 and the 105 2.8 and I don't have any issues with regards to build quality. From all accounts, the image quality from the 70-200 2.8 is not far off the Nikon equivalent but no VR.
I don't know how often I would use the TC but I know that I will need one. Sometimes I wish I had more reach with my 70-300 door stopper.
All I have to do now is come up with the cash, may have to ebay some of my old film stuff.

phillipb wrote:All I have to do now is come up with the cash, may have to ebay some of my old film stuff.

I know the feeling, I'm ebaying my 80-200 AF-ED while waiting for my VR.
(in forsale if you are interested, but looks like you eye is on the sigma).

regardless of kit, enjoy capturing the moments!

Actually I'm still looking at various 80-200 on Ebay. I saw your post but I got the feeling from what you said that you wanted a price close to what we can get it new from our bargains section. If I'm wrong in this assumption, pm me with your price and we'll take it from there.

Philip, the 80-200 first came out in AF form in 1988 so some examples are quite old. A small premium to s/h to know the provenace of a lens like Oz's is worthwhile as you seem to agree.

Sirhc55 and I tested our 70-200 Sigma and Nikon VR's one morning over coffee on both his D2Hs and my D70. The results were virtually indistinguishable. I bought the VR as I had a spare $500 and thought it would save my bacon one day on a moving boat etc. Plus I tend to buy gear and never sell it.



This site will give you some indication of age of the lens by serial number.

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html