Another "which one" question

[phillipb]

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

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

[PiroStitch]

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.

[Glen]

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).

[phillipb]

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.

[Glen]

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.

[MHD]

I'm very happy with my Sigma...

[Yi-P]

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

[Oz_Beachside]

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.

[phillipb]

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.

[Glen]

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

[phillipb]

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.

[Oz_Beachside]

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!

[phillipb]

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.

[Glen]

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