p.1 #1 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
Has anyone owned both of these? I'm thinking about selling the Sigma and buying the AF-S, but I don't know if it's really worth the extra money... I'm leaning towards not getting one, but I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who's had experience with both. Sharpness seems alright with the Sigma, not great at 2.8, but I can live with it... how much of a difference is there in sharpness/ AF speed between the 2?
p.1 #2 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I've had both lenses. You already nailed it on the head. If you need best performance (sharpness, contrast, etc.) at f/2.8 then go for the Nikon AF-S version. If you can live with the Sigma performance at f/2.8 then no need to upgrade. I think the bokeh of the Nikon is slightly better. I did like the Sigma for the close-up performance. Also think about how much re-sale value you will be able to get on the Sigma. You may take a significant hit.
p.1 #3 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I demand top results wide open on an f2.8 lens, so for that reason alone I would definitely go for the AF-S Nikkor over the Siggy. I've seen great results from the Siggy stopped down a little, but for MY purposes I need f2.8 to be little or no sacrifice on IQ. If you typically shoot f4+ I don't really see as much need to do the change, unless you're finding the Siggy AF performance is letting you down some.
p.1 #4 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I have the AF-S, and it lives at 2.8. If I didn't use f/2.8 so much, I would have considered the 70-300 VR or the Sigma 100-300 f/4, getting more reach. I will probably buy the 70-300 as a supplement to the AF-S.
p.1 #5 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I have the 70-200vr and a 4 year old sigma 70-200. The AF-S might be a little faster than HSM, dunno, never tested them side by side. I did test them, sort of, buy shooting the VR one day and then the sigma the next day, on my d200s, when I got the VR. Shooting my dogs as they ran around the yard, I couldn't discern any significant difference in AF speed. I also have a 120-300 DG, which is pretty fast AF, again maybe not as good as the best nikkor AF-S zooms, but certainly not junk. I seriously doubt that the difference in AF speed is significant to all but the most demanding shooters. Any AF speed difference certainly is not anywhere near the difference between HSM and any screwdriver lens, that is for sure.
I tend to think that my sigma is slightly sharper wide open, than the nikkor. I didn't sell the sigma, keeping it as an alternative to the nikkor, since 70-200 is a heavily used lens range for me.
Most accounts that I've read, is that the 80-200 nikkor is slightly sharper wide open, than the 70-200vr and has better edge performance for FX application.
I've also read accounts that some of the newer versions of the sigma are not as sharp, wide open, as the older version that I have. Dunno if that is true or not, so your lens may or may not be as sharp wide open as my oldie but goodie. Since I shoot a lot at f/2.8 on a DX body, I probably wouldn't be happy with f/2.8 performance that was much worse than my 70-200vr.
p.1 #6 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I picked up a 70-200 Sigma HSM DG II about 6 months ago and have been very happy with the IQ down to 2.8. If I do my part the lens seems to do its job well. I've never owned the 80-200 AF-s but comparing the image quality to my 28-70 AF-s @ 2.8 it's on a par. Sigma tends to be a little warmer but sharpness is hard to differentiate.
p.1 #7 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
I have the 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S and really like the results. Really can't go wrong with this lens. Just make sure you get the hood when you buy the lens used - those hoods do get pricey.
Used to have the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 but it was not quite as sharp at f2.8. At f4.0, it would be acceptable and very hard to differentiate at f5.6.
Sigma HSM isn't always as fast as one would expect.... and my copy, as I recall, did have some trouble with AF hunting.
p.1 #8 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
Thanks all. The Sigma is okay really... but it's not that sharp at larger apertures. I'm not crazy about the colours either. If I can sell the Sigma, I'll probably upgrade to the Nikon.
p.1 #9 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
They show up every now and then on the B&S forum but the 80-200 AFS Nikkor is a great lens, really great lens. if you decide to get one do buy yourself the Kirk replacement tpod mount and if it doesn't come with it, order the hood from Nikon, it's a beast of a hood but worth it.
p.1 #10 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
Well, I am this close to getting a good deal on the 80-200 AF-S.... but what a concidence... it has no tripod collar! So I might have to shell out 150 bucks on the Kirk one? Qranc, where could I order a replacement one from Nikon? It's bound to be a bit cheaper?
p.1 #12 · 80-200 Nikon AF-S over Sigma 70-200 HSM II 2.8?
Is the 70-200 VR too slow for street shooting at night handheld? I'd imagine even with VR 2.8 wouldn't be enough? I guess 200 f2 VR is the only option! Although still a great help obviously... too bad 70-200 VR is not perfect for FX....
