Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 macro

[Phranquey]

thanks a bunch!
So is the af-d better than the af-s ? or is the only difference the focus that i probably wont notice?

the picture of the owl is awesome!

I wouldn't say better, but equal enough that the AF-S isn't really worth the extra cost unless you are shooting a lot of fast moving sports, or you pick up a really good deal.


And thanks on the pic.

 

[Pure]

I personally own the 80-200mm f/2.8, and this lens is 100% worth every dollar. While no it does not have SWM [Nikkor AF-S], VR, or some other goodies, the 80-200mm is one of the best sub-$1000 zoom tele lens.

You will not regret paying for Nikkor quality stuff. The difference between a real Nikkor and a Sigma/Tamron is amazing. PAY THE $920 FOR IT AND DON'T LOOK BACK.

Here's 2 shots for example...

NO PP, ONLY RESIZE.
[JPEG LARGE FINE QUALITY]

Nikon 90 @ 200mm @ f/2.8 @ ISO 400 @ on M:

AND [for animal theme]

Nikon D90 @ 145mm @ f/2.8 @ ISO 200 @ 1/200 on M

 

[Ejazzle]

dang those are sharp!

i shoot alot of very fast moving sports. so maybe af-s is the way to go.

 

[Pure]

I mean, AF-D is 80% as fast as AF-S. So it isn't that much slower, but heh.

I've done soccer, football, volleyball, etc. and probably have a keep rate of about 25% with a slower D90. Keep in mind those are the ones that are "action shots" but I'd say atleast 60% are tact sharp.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

In my experiences, the 80-200 is better on full frame or film, the 70-200 is better on DX.

Essentially, the 70-200 is crazy sharp in the center, where the 80-200 is still crazy sharp, but better in the corners, it's more uniform.

Personally, as far as optics are concerned, IMO the 80-200 AF-D is a better lens then the 70-200 VR. But throw in VR, AF-S, etc and the 70-200 is better.

 

[Pure]

In my experiences, the 80-200 is better on full frame or film, the 70-200 is better on DX.

Essentially, the 70-200 is crazy sharp in the center, where the 80-200 is still crazy sharp, but better in the corners, it's more uniform.

Personally, as far as optics are concerned, IMO the 80-200 AF-D is a better lens then the 70-200 VR. But throw in VR, AF-S, etc and the 70-200 is better.

True, but many of use poor people can't afford a $1700 lens. I wish though, I'm still waiting for a 70-200mm f/2.8 Revision 2 that has the Nano coat and aspherical [sp?] elements. Hopefully Nikon will develop it

 

[Ejazzle]

thanks for all the help guys! Kinda happy that i got steered away from the sigma.

So if i have the money the Af-s would be the way to go?

 

[Pure]

If you have the money, the 70-200mm is worth every penny, however, if not, 80-200mm is the better choice.

 

[Ejazzle]

i wish i had the money for the 70-200

 

[Pure]

Stop moaning. Buy the 80-200mm and be happy you have one of Nikkor's best tele zoom lenses.

 

[sabbath999]

Stop moaning. Buy the 80-200mm and be happy you have one of Nikkor's best tele zoom lenses.

+1

I have the 70-200 VR and if I had to do it all over again I would have bought the 80-200 and saved the cash.

 

[JerryPH]

so does the 70-200vr put both the 80-200 and the sigma to shame?

No. Though the edge goes to the 70-200, it has optics quite close to the 80-200, however it has 10mm less and no VR which will give you better results at the wide end when hand holding.

It does destroy the Sigma, though.

I :heart: my 70-200. It rawks.

 

[Pure]

HERE:
$889 [blah you bastards, dropped the price again! I paid $920 a month ago from BH]
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

 

[Ejazzle]

AF-s or AF-d? is the extra $$ worth the it for the af-s?

 

[bhop]

AF-s or AF-d? is the extra $$ worth the it for the af-s?

Someone already answered that for you earlier.

Basically, will you be shooting fast moving objects or mostly still/slow moving objects?

fast=AF-S
still =AF-D