Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

Mono Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? Firstly I've searched all over the place for a direct comparison, but no luck to date...thus the post. (I've read individual reviews for both lenses on other Forums & here) I'm looking for a 70-200 zoom that will work in low light levels (eg. indoors without flash) I've listed the 2 possibilities below incl UK prices for comparision. Has anybody owned both & can comment which is the better lens please in terms of usability & PQ ? :- - Brand new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM lens - Cost £459 from onestopdigital - Second Hand Nikon 80-200 ED f2.8 D AF lens - Cost £360 approx from EBAY Thanks in advance Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 09:49 AM

Jeff Stevens Offline Buy and Sell: On p.1 #2 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? The sigma will beat the Nikon wide open hands down. I've had the non dg and the dg version of the sigma's and they are much better wide open then the nikon. Stopped down they looked the same to me, maybe the Nikon is a little better. Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 02:25 PM

jmcfadden Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #3 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? Jeff either you got the best copy of the sigma or the worst nikon ever. My experience is just the opposite J Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 03:24 PM

sl1200mk4 Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I will go with the Sigma not based on picture quality but faster and quiet focusing. For indoor low light though, you can't be the 70-200 VR. I sucked it up, and it's worth every penny. Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 03:34 PM

gugs Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #5 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I think that I already mentioned this in a previous thread, but Foto Magazin, a very serious german magazine recently tested most 70-200 f2.8 lenses available on the market. According to them the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 DG version outperforms all other lenses optically speaking (sharpness wide open, distortion, vignetting,...), including the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR on DX like sensors (on a full frame sensor -Canon mount or film, performance is lower !) The old Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non-DG is also an excellent performer, optically speaking, but closer to 80-200 f2.8 performance. However, Nikon outperforms the Sigma lenses on build quality and mechanics. Moreover the 70-200 f2.8 from Nikon gives you VR which is an incredible advantage. My conclusion is: if you have the money, no hesitation go for the Nikkor with VR, if budget is limited the Sigma is the best choice for optical quality, next to the 80-200 from Nikon (slightly better build quality but lower performance and slow and noisy AF). Anyway, we are talking about choosing between a Porsche, a Ferrari, a Corvette and a Viper. All those lenses are in the category "top performers". Make your choice based on value for money, long term investment (Nikkor), short term out of pocket (Sigma), versatility, optical quality.... up to you to decide. Hope this helps. Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 03:35 PM

palmbook Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #6 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I love my Sigma 70-200mm. It's fast, especially with HSM. Moreover, it's worth every cent I have to pay for. My main complaint would be the minimum focus distance of 1.8m; whereas other manufacturers can have 1.5m. Other minor complaints include easy-to-get-scratched lens body, and a weird noise when the lens hits its minimum focus distance or infinity. Nikon 80-200mm received good reputation too. I will have no doubt if it's sharper wide-open at the tele end, or has better contrast+saturation. But you have to sacrifice the focus speed if you choose this one. In addition, I think you have to pay more money for this lens than the Sigma one too. I have heard that the zoom ring of 80-200mm tends to have a crack though. Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 03:39 PM

Marc Kurth Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? The Sigma is well known to be a good lens, but you should also consider resale value should you decide to upgrade later. The used Nikkor will hold most of the value that you pay for it, and I'm willing to bet that it will withstand more use and abuse. Marc Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 03:44 PM

jbear Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #8 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I've had 2 Nikkors (one and two-touch 80-200/2.8) and the Sigma. I saw no difference in optics at all, but the Sigma (to me) handled decidedly better...better MF touch, removable tripod collar, faster and silent focusing. The Nikkor is heavier but I can't say better built in practice, only based upon reputation (I'm guessing QC is statistically better at Nikon but when you get a good Sigma...its good). I use these in the field for nature photography and none of my Nikkors, Pro Sigmas, or Pro Tokinas have ever failed and they all feel solid. In 20 years I guess I can make a definitive statement about that, but for now...I trust them all in any situation. As far as resale goes...I never buy a lens based upon resale...just how it will perform for me. That being said, several Sigma EX lenses seem to keep their value pretty well. They're all excellent lenses; you'll be happy with whatever you decide. Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 06:24 PM

Mono Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #9 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I can't thank everyone enough for your detailed responses. I would love the VR, but cannot justify spending twice what I did on the D70+std lens Resale is a good point, but here in the UK, EBAY is still a novelty & people pay near new prices for s/h gear . Sigma for me then I'll be looking to improve on my WA shots now vs this one with a borrowed cheaper Sigma 70-300 zoom :- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/295627 Thanks again guys !!! Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 06:38 PM

uccmmcpo Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #10 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I`d give the Sigma a try first hoping to get a good copy simply because the 70-200 is a bit more versatile on the wider end plus the fact that my first experience using a Nikon 80-200 was not good . It was soft wide open. Of course I bought it used on the FM B+S forum at a good price and it was only 3 months old. I don`t ever wonder why the orig owner sold it to me so cheap. Funny thing though, the guy who bought it from me is satisfied. I`ve learned my lesson. No more used lenses ,no matter how cheap unless I get to try it on my body first and obviously that`s usually not possible or easily done. John Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 06:52 PM

chemprof Online Image Upload: On p.1 #11 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? uccmmcpo wrote: I`d give the Sigma a try first hoping to get a good copy simply because the 70-200 is a bit more versatile on the wider end plus the fact that my first experience using a Nikon 80-200 was not good . It was soft wide open. Of course I bought it used on the FM B+S forum at a good price and it was only 3 months old. I don`t ever wonder why the orig owner sold it to me so cheap. Funny thing though, the guy who bought it from me is satisfied. I`ve learned my lesson. No more used lenses ,no matter how cheap unless I get to try it on my body first and obviously that`s usually not possible or easily done. John I would also buy the Sigma in this case. My only other thought (apparently, perhaps not as good an option in the UK) would be a used 80-200 AF-S Nikkor (no longer made). This would go for about $800-900 in the US. I must be lucky so far (though it probably can't last for ever!), but I have purchased 3 used Sigma EX lenses (180, 50-500, 12-24), and all of them were indistinguishable from new and optically excellent. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend these lenses to anyone. Haven't tried the 70-200, but it has a stellar reputation. Also, I have a friend to whom I recommended the 100-300 f 4, and that is also an incredibly good performer. Gerald Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 07:24 PM

thebeephaha Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? In a few days I'm actaully buying the older sigma 70-200 (non DG version). I'm gettin it used for $600 in Mint cond. with caps, hood, and case. My friend "Tazo" has the Nikkor 80-200 AF-S so I'm sure we will be doing some compairisons and all... Edited on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM Oct 25, 2005 at 10:20 PM

sl1200mk4 Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #13 · New Sigma 70-200 vs S/H Nikon 80-200 ? I would love to see some serious tests showing the Sigma outperforms my Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Yes, VR and IS degrades pictures quality, but even then... I doubt that the Sigma is that good. I did play around with the non-DG version and I must admit that it is probably just as good as any 70-200 out there. Out-performs them all? My money goes to the Canon 70-200 non-IS. Oct 26, 2005 at 03:51 AM

	FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?