Going from 3rd party to Nikon?

[D40]

Well, now that I have the D200 I do not have to have lens with the AF motor built in my lens. I purchased the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro lens because I had the D40 at the time. My question is this, I was looking at the Nikon AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 and was wandering if it would be better if I sold the Sigma and got the Nikon version. Would the Nikon glass be worth the 10mm loss? I like the idea of stick with Nikon glass but...? I am still waiting on B&H to get the MB-D200 in stock!!!! Anyone know how long it usually takes them? thanks

 

[icassell]

hmmmm .... I have the sigma 50-150mm EX f2.8 for my Canon -- I've been very happy with the lens and haven't even considered buying the Canon lens ... I don't know anything about their 70-200. Is it in the EX series?

 

[sabbath999]

I have never used the sigma lens, but I can tell you that the 80-200 Nikkor is a fantastic lens and a tank. The 10mm is inconsequential.

Me, I shoot Nikon because of Nikkor glass. But that's me.

 

[D40]

Yes the 70-200 is an EX lens. Build and all are great but I was wandering if the Nikon 80-200 may have a slight upper hand in IQ being a Nikon lens. If not I would just keep the Sigma and wait and hope that one day I could get the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR

 

[icassell]

I suggest you find one to rent and try a side to side comparison!

 

[D40]

Sabbath999: That is the reason I would be switching...because it is Nikkor glass I think I have the 3 year warrenty with the Sigma so selling now would bring a decent price.

 

[sabbath999]

Yes the 70-200 is an EX lens. Build and all are great but I was wandering if the Nikon 80-200 may have a slight upper hand in IQ being a Nikon lens. If not I would just keep the Sigma and wait and hope that one day I could get the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 VR and have shot an 80-200 Nikkor. There is no difference in image quality or build quality between the two, the only advantage of the 70-200 is the AF-S focusing (faster) and the VR.

If I had to do it all over again I would buy the 80-200 and save the $1K difference. Simply an FYI.

 

[D40]

I am wanting to switch more so now I am (soon as in as soon as they get them in stock going to order a few things from B&H (MB-d200, Battery, 50f/1.8). that gives me:

D200
Sigma 70-200
50mm f/1.8
SB-600
MB-d200
2 batteries

I would love to get the Nikon 24-70 but as that is imposible I have been looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. So?? I need something for the wider end and that seems to get good revies. I would like to keep away from Sigma but Nikon does not make anything in that range and f/2.8 that I can afford, so that would be my only Sigma if I make the switch.

 

[bhop]

Perfect timing, I have been researching the 80-200 2.8 nikkor and the 70-200 2.8 Sigma HSM comparisons this week. Quite a few of the reviews i've seen claim that the Sigma is actually sharper as well as a little shorter than the Nikon version. (and a few hundred bucks cheaper) But of course, there are a lot of Nikkor defenders too. So I figure it's close enough to not really be worth the extra few hundred dollars. I was planning to save up for one of these lenses and it'll probably be the Sigma.

I own a 70-200 f/2.8 VR and have shot an 80-200 Nikkor. There is no difference in image quality or build quality between the two, the only advantage of the 70-200 is the AF-S focusing (faster) and the VR.

If your 70-200 is the HSM version, you probably know this already, but if not then, "HSM" in Sigma lenses means it's got an internal focus motor too. (Hyper Sonic Motor) So really, the VR is the only difference in the OP's lens. (other than any IQ differences)

 

[icassell]

Perfect timing, I have been researching the 80-200 2.8 nikkor and the 70-200 2.8 Sigma HSM comparisons this week. Quite a few of the reviews i've seen claim that the Sigma is actually sharper as well as a little shorter than the Nikon version. (and a few hundred bucks cheaper) I was planning to save up for one of these lenses and it'll probably be the Sigma.

Interesting --- so many people talk about the Sigma 70-200 and so few talk about the 50-150. The 50-150mm is so nice because it is smaller and lighter and 150mm on a crop-sensor does very well (remember that the 70-210 was the popular zoom in the 35mm days). It's a very easy lens to handhold, sharp as a tack, and very fast focus. It mates very nicely with the EX series TC's at a bit of a speed loss, but you can do alot with a 150mm f2.8.

The 50-150 weighs 27.5 oz. vs the 70-200 which weighs 48.7 oz The Nikon 80-200 weighs 45.9 oz and the nikon 70-200 vr weighs 51 oz.

 

[bhop]

Interesting --- so many people talk about the Sigma 70-200 and so few talk about the 50-150. The 50-150mm is so nice because it is smaller and lighter and 150mm on a crop-sensor does very well (remember that the 70-210 was the popular zoom in the 35mm days). It's a very easy lens to handhold, sharp as a tack, and very fast focus. It mates very nicely with the EX series TC's at a bit of a speed loss, but you can do alot with a 150mm f2.8.

The 50-150 weighs 27.5 oz. vs the 70-200 which weighs 48.7 oz

Personally, for my own purposes, I already have a 50mm 1.8, and an AiS 105mm. The extra reach to 200mm with f2.8 (over the 50-150mm) seems worth it to me. Plus I shoot mostly film bodies these days so the crop sensor doesn't really apply in my case, well, unless I use my d70, and then a 200mm would still be better.

 

[D40]

bhop what DSLR are you putting it on? Don't get me wrong, the Sigma 70-200 has put out some fantastic photos so it is not like I am wanting to switch because of a lack of IQ, I was just asking those that have used the Nikon if it was worth the switch. It looks like for now I will hold on to the Sigma. As I said, as soon as B&H gets the MB-d200 in I will be getting the above mentioned stuff. Then I will have to make a decision on a wide angle lens. Actually most of what I do (Church event photography and portraits) are done with the 70-200, I apsolutely love the range and f/2.8! But I do need a wide angle lens that is f/2.8 . I have read on the Tamrons but I know that Sigma's EX lens (I own the 70-200) are VERY well built, maybe not metal as the Nikon but far from plasticy. That is why I am looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8.

 

[bhop]

bhop what DSLR are you putting it on? Don't get me wrong, the Sigma 70-200 has put out some fantastic photos so it is not like I am wanting to switch because of a lack of IQ, I was just asking those that have used the Nikon if it was worth the switch. It looks like for now I will hold on to the Sigma. As I said, as soon as B&H gets the MB-d200 in I will be getting the above mentioned stuff. Then I will have to make a decision on a wide angle lens. Actually most of what I do (Church event photography and portraits) are done with the 70-200, I apsolutely love the range and f/2.8! But I do need a wide angle lens that is f/2.8 . I have read on the Tamrons but I know that Sigma's EX lens (I own the 70-200) are VERY well built, maybe not metal as the Nikon but far from plasticy. That is why I am looking at the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8.

Well, I don't have one yet, the info I have is from other forums like nikonians.org, photo.net, and various other websites, so I don't have much to back up my opinion, just what i've read, so if someone else has actual real world experience with both, maybe their opinion would be more valid, however just from my own research, I don't think it's worth the extra $800 that the Nikkor costs. If you're doing pro work, maybe it would be, but to me, the Sigma seems pretty nice.

When I eventually do get one, i'll be using it on my F100 mostly, but i'm sure it'll see use on the d70 as well.

Here's a comparison page from dpreview.com
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/page2.asp

edit: Actually, I just noticed that you're talking about the 'Nikon AF-D 80-200 f/2.8' Similar pricing, but mainly because it doesn't have an internal focus motor, while the Sigma does. (my $800 more comment was about the Nikkor 70-200 with af-s and VR)

 

[D40]

Ya the 70-200 VR is $800 more. The 80-200 is about the price I paid for my Sigma. I paid $902 on the dot and it is worth that for sure.

 

[kundalini]

I've only had Nikkor lenses on my Nikon bodies. You mentioned in passing the 24-70mm f/2.8. All I can say is that is my most used lens for general use. It stays mounted on my camera. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is wonderful, but sometimes gets in the way, particularly if you are trying to melt into the background and not be noticed.