Wedding Photography - sigma 70-200 or nikon 80-200

Lyncca · Jun 8, 2009

I've looked up reviews and they seem pretty mixed. What do you wedding photographers on here think?

I would LOVE the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (who wouldn't), but $1800 is just not a possibility right now since I am getting equipment and experience as tag-alongs and second shooting (which I need this lens for) before really making much money. I don't have a need for this lens when shooting kiddos and families, so it isn't anything I needed before.

Is there really THAT much difference in the Nikon dream lens and these others? If you really couldn't have one which of the alternatives would you go for?

Also, on cropped sensor, is there much difference in the 70 to 80 mm? I find that when I use my 70-300mm junk lens, that I'm either completely at one end and trying to back up to get a shot in the small side, or completely to the long end, so the 10mm difference worries me a little (mostly used at the zoo, so I will sell this after getting the 70-200).

I also need to get a full frame (refuse to buy any more cropped for the future), fast, low-mid zoom, so any money I can save to go towards that would make me happy; but I don't want to sacrifice extreme quality either. Right now I am surviving on primes, but it isn't very convenient when you need a little more zoom and you can't move into the middle of the aisle

Sorry for rambling, just trying to provide as much info as possible so I don't get the obvious questions of "whats it for?" "whats your budget?". LOL

SpeedTrap · Jun 8, 2009

Why buy a lower end lens than you want?
I learned from experence the higher end glass will pay for itself and should you decide you don't want to keep it, it has a much better resale.

If you purchase a lens that will get you by and then you want to upgrade you will take a much larger hit on the resale of a Sigma than a Nikon Lens.

Montana · Jun 8, 2009

I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use. The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO. My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.

Lyncca · Jun 8, 2009

SpeedTrap said:
Why buy a lower end lens than you want?
I learned from experence the higher end glass will pay for itself and should you decide you don't want to keep it, it has a much better resale.

If you purchase a lens that will get you by and then you want to upgrade you will take a much larger hit on the resale of a Sigma than a Nikon Lens.

Well, I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to wait 6 mths when I could be at least a second shooter for a wedding during that time with a lens in that range. Otherwise, sitting duck for a long time or renting. Renting at $200 a weekend or whatever doesn't seem very logical either since I'm not currently getting paid to go in the first place, and when I become a second it probably won't be that much to start with. That seems like completely throwing away money multiple times.

It did occur to me though that I have a shoot thats pretty definite at the end of the month that would buy one of these alternates (which is what I was going to do), but I could then also sell my 70-300 VR, which should get me close enough to pitch in just a bit of my own money (but then I am starting all over on the low-mid range zooms.

Montana said:
I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use. The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO. My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.

I am not fullframe yet, but I don't want to invest further in cropped sensor since I figure one day I will make the plunge and don't want to be completely screwed on my lenses.

When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?

Dao · Jun 8, 2009

From the review I read the other day, for cropped sensor body, the Sigma is fine. But when it is mounted on a full frame sensor body, the corner is very soft.

The review I read compare the Sigma, Tamron and Canon L (all are 70-200mm F/2.8), image quality for full frame, the Tamron is on par with the Canon version. In some test, it is even better (slightly) than the Canon L. But the draw back on Tamron are slower focus speed and build quality is not as good as others.

Sorry, I do not know too much about the 80-200mm F/2.8 Nikon lens, from what I read here, it is a great lens.

The review I read regarding the 70-200mm fast zoom lens.

Juza Nature Photography

SpeedTrap · Jun 8, 2009

One other alternative would be to sell you 18-200 as well.
If you have the 18-70 and then the 70-200 you are covered.
Plus it gets one more DX lens out of your bag and replaces it with a great lens.

I have used the Nikon 80-200 and I much prefer the 70-200VR

Mike_E · Jun 8, 2009

If you are going to be in business then you have to look at this from an economic stand point. Period

Will the Sigma give you the IQ you need to conduct your business in the near term? Of course it will if you're half the photographer you appear to be.

Can you afford to operate in the red for as many months as the difference between the lenses will put you there? Is there any other piece of equipment that you have to have as well that you couldn't afford if you went with the Nikon?

Buying the best only works if you can afford it now or can wait for it. If it's a matter of putting food on the table (an extreme example I know but there you are) then you can't afford it now nor can you wait.

You should be setting aside a percentage for equipment replacement/upgrades anyway, double up on that if you like- just don't rob the taxman to buy equipment!

Good luck

Garbz · Jun 8, 2009

Lyncca said:
When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?

The Nikon. This dream lens is far from a dream when used on a film body or full frame camera. Online forums are full of stories of people who have "upgraded" to the older Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8

Btw I have used the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 D for several weddings. The build quality and image quality are exceptional, and with a decent camera body it focuses very fast too. The only benefit the 70-200 has is VR and the bundled lens hood is better. But the 80-200 is lighter too.

Josh220 · Jun 9, 2009

Garbz said:
Lyncca said:

When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?

Click to expand...

The Nikon. This dream lens is far from a dream when used on a film body or full frame camera. Online forums are full of stories of people who have "upgraded" to the older Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8

Btw I have used the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 D for several weddings. The build quality and image quality are exceptional, and with a decent camera body it focuses very fast too. The only benefit the 70-200 has is VR and the bundled lens hood is better. But the 80-200 is lighter too.

Are the rumors of soft edges only reported on full frame bodies? Or on DX as well?

Garbz · Jun 9, 2009

Full Frame only, and edge / corner sharpness is the only place it's lacking. On DX bodies you could not tell the the 70-200 from the 80-200. Both look tac sharp.

Lyncca · Jun 9, 2009

SpeedTrap said:
One other alternative would be to sell you 18-200 as well.
If you have the 18-70 and then the 70-200 you are covered.
Plus it gets one more DX lens out of your bag and replaces it with a great lens.

I have used the Nikon 80-200 and I much prefer the 70-200VR

I just can't part with the 18-200 right now. I will be keeping my D300, so it will continue to work with that. I just can't beat it for a walk-around/vacation type lens, when I can't stop and change out my lenses every 2 minutes or carry two bodies

Shoot me, but I am quite attached to that little lens. Most of my personal pictures (non portrait) are taken with either that lens or my wide-angle (which I will eventually upgrade to the full frame, but its a back burner item).

Mike_E said:
If you are going to be in business then you have to look at this from an economic stand point. Period

Will the Sigma give you the IQ you need to conduct your business in the near term? Of course it will if you're half the photographer you appear to be.

Can you afford to operate in the red for as many months as the difference between the lenses will put you there? Is there any other piece of equipment that you have to have as well that you couldn't afford if you went with the Nikon?

Buying the best only works if you can afford it now or can wait for it. If it's a matter of putting food on the table (an extreme example I know but there you are) then you can't afford it now nor can you wait.

You should be setting aside a percentage for equipment replacement/upgrades anyway, double up on that if you like- just don't rob the taxman to buy equipment!

Good luck

Thanks for the good advice

It isn't keeping food from the table (thankfully I have the paying day job), but waiting is keeping me from progressing in the direction I want in photography. Buying the Nikon 70-200 also prevents me from buying the other lens that I also need, but not as desperately.

I think with the price difference and full frame problems, I am going to probably get the 80-200. I will go to the camera store and see if they have both in stock to check them out in person too.

Thanks everyone for your input, it was very helpful!

itznfb · Jun 9, 2009

i reasearched for about a month before i decided to get the 70-200mm VR instead of the 80-200mm. for one, i prefer shooting DX format for the crop but i tested both out on my friends D3 (he has the 80-200mm and i rented the 70-200mm) and the only issue i saw on the 70-200mm VR was the vignetting as reported by some other users/reviews. however this was easily corrected in photoshop and the pictures were identical. that being said.... why go with the 70-200mm when the pictures were identical? to me the VR was worth the extra $$ and the 70-200mm focused faster (on my D90) especially in low light. not sure why... but on the D3 they focused the same at least from what i could tell. maybe because it's a $5000 camera vs a $800

edit:
as an additional note, carrying both of them around all day i couldn't tell the difference in weight. so i wouldn't use that as a deciding factor unless you think a couple ounces might make a difference.

Montana · Jun 9, 2009

Lyncca said:
Montana said:

I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use. The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO. My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.

Click to expand...

I am not fullframe yet, but I don't want to invest further in cropped sensor since I figure one day I will make the plunge and don't want to be completely screwed on my lenses.

When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?

Sorry for the delayed response, my cousin stated that the Nikon 70-200 was softer in the corners than the Nikon 80-200. Neither of us has tried the Sigma in either nikon or canon mount. My cousin shoots D700. He used to shoot a D300, but when he went full frame, he said the 70-200 fell on its face in the corners. I suppose it makes sense, the 70-200 was designed for crop sensor.