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

[Lyncca]

Right, I knew it was designed for full frame.

 

[Montana]

My bad, I thought Nikon developed the 70-200 before they had full frame digital bodies.

Edit~ I think people are confusing my meaning when I say designed for crop sensors. It covers full frame, but I do not believe Nikon had a full frame digital body out at the time. the 70-200 is from around the Spring of 2003 and the the D3 is March 07(ish) . I think. Therefore it makes sense why its soft in the corners, Nikon didn't have a body that used the corners at the time.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts. I know its not designated as a crop lens, but was built before Nikon caught up to the full frame market.

 

[itznfb]

My bad, I thought Nikon developed the 70-200 before they had full frame digital bodies.

Edit~ I think people are confusing my meaning when I say designed for crop sensors. It covers full frame, but I do not believe Nikon had a full frame digital body out at the time. the 70-200 is from around the Spring of 2003 and the the D3 is March 07(ish) . I think. Therefore it makes sense why its soft in the corners, Nikon didn't have a body that used the corners at the time.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts. I know its not designated as a crop lens, but was built before Nikon caught up to the full frame market.

it was designed for film bodies. the 70-200mm is a direct replacement of the 80-200mm. as SpeedTrap said, lenses designed for crop sensors have the DX logo on them.

 

[MrLogic]

^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.

 

[JerryPH]

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?

The fast answer to your question is... yes. Lynnca, read this post I just typed out... it is pertinent to your question.

In a wedding, where things move fast, 90% of the Nikon photographers that use a telephoto, use the 70-200 VR. After having used the Sigma 70-100, Nikkor 80-200 and the Nikkor 70-200... I know why, and I sincerely could not see myself using anything else but the Nikkor 70-200 VR.

 

[JerryPH]

^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.

I use my Nikkor 70-200 VR on my D200 (crop sensor) and D700 (full frame sensor) successfully. Of course the D200 does use a smaller part of the lens due to it's smaller sensor, but it works just fine.

Though this lens was designed in 2003, a little ways before full frame digital cameras were around, it was designed for 35mm film bodies, and optics for film and optics for the digital age have identical needs.

That is why the 85mm F/1.4 Nikkor, one of the BEST lenses around anywhere, even today, is still called the Cream Machine... even though it was designed in 1982! This lens works wonderfully on either my D200 or D700 and is to this day, one of my most favorite portrait lenses. Extremely sharp and colour rendition and bokeh that is unmatched anywhere.

 

[Lyncca]

^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.

I use my Nikkor 70-200 VR on my D200 (crop sensor) and D700 (full frame sensor) successfully. Of course the D200 does use a smaller part of the lens due to it's smaller sensor, but it works just fine.

Though this lens was designed in 2003, a little ways before full frame digital cameras were around, it was designed for 35mm film bodies, and optics for film and optics for the digital age have identical needs.

That is why the 85mm F/1.4 Nikkor, one of the BEST lenses around anywhere, even today, is still called the Cream Machine... even though it was designed in 1982! This lens works wonderfully on either my D200 or D700 and is to this day, one of my most favorite portrait lenses. Extremely sharp and colour rendition and bokeh that is unmatched anywhere.

The main photographer used the 85 1.4 to shoot the actual ceremony from upfront at the wedding I just tagged-along to. They turned out gorgeous. My 50mm (I was on the left side, she was on the right), was just too far away without cropping.

 

[JerryPH]

The guy that I shoot with is a Canon user, and uses the 85mm F/1.2. talk about blur... lol.

I'm kinda getting suckered into using a lot of my 50, 85 and 105mm primes and liking the look it gives me at weddings. I still love the versatility of the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200, though. Decisions, decisions!

 

[Lyncca]

The guy that I shoot with is a Canon user, and uses the 85mm F/1.2. talk about blur... lol.

I'm kinda getting suckered into using a lot of my 50, 85 and 105mm primes and liking the look it gives me at weddings. I still love the versatility of the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200, though. Decisions, decisions!

Ashley was a Canon user too. I told her she couldn't be perfect.
I love my primes, but I need a little more versatility so I am going to get the 24-70 and 80-200 as well. I'm selling the 70-300 and maybe my 35mm. Do you think I should keep the last one? Its a bit faster and I like it, but money doesn't grow on trees (at least in my yard).

Won't sell the nifty fifty unless I upgrade it. That little baby is a life-saver in low-light.

 

[JerryPH]

Ashley was a Canon user too. I told her she couldn't be perfect.

LOL... my friend and I also jostle in a friendly way. Neither one of us are brand snobs, and we both like what we have... me with my D700 and him with is 5D mkII.

I love my primes, but I need a little more versatility so I am going to get the 24-70 and 80-200 as well.

Won't sell the nifty fifty unless I upgrade it. That little baby is a life-saver in low-light.

Honestly, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8, but it is going to be sold... because the next lens I am getting is the Sigma 50mm F/1.4. I tried it out and am going to get it before the end of the summer. "Sharp, fast and clear" is what they should have named that lens... lol

Lyncca, I wish there was a way I could convince you to test out the 70-200 and 80-200 side by side like I did. There is enough of a difference, *especially* in wedding scenarios, that you would be better off waiting a YEAR, saving the difference and getting the 70-200 than settling for the 80-200. Just due to the slow focus speeds alone (not to mention that I found it hunted a lot in low light situations), you will lose at least 20% or more keepers. For me, that lens would be an exercise in frustration every time I pressed the shutter!

Edit: The 35mm is a F/2.8 and manual focus, I presume? Unless you are very comfortable with it, yes I would sell it and the 50mm F/1.8 in favor of the 50mm F/1.4 Sigma. In real life, the difference in getting the same composition between the 35mm and 50mm is 2-3 steps back.

 

[Mike_E]

Lyncca, you could just buy a new pair of shoes. They make great zooms.

You could also look into this.. Nikon | Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens | 1923

 

[Dao]

Do you think the value of the used 80-200mm will drop a lot within a year?

From what I learned, good lens usually hold up pretty well. Buy a 80-200mm now, use it, play with it. If you do not like it, or you save up more money later on, sell it and use the money plus the extra money you saved and buy the 70-200mm.

I bought my EF 50mm lens for $80 new. When I sold it a year later, I got $75 back.

One friend of my bought the EF 70-200mm F/2.8 IS lens for $1100 new few years ago. I am sure if he want to sell it to me for $1100, I will take it. (too bad, he is not selling the lens)

 

[Garbz]

The value of the 80-200 drop? In a year? It hasn't dropped the last 20 years, so I doubt it'll start now.

Also the 70-200 may cast a full frame circle, but it was developed in 2002, a time where Nikon had only DX digitals on the market, and the film industry had started to plummet into oblivion. It may cast a full frame circle, but it was clearly developed with DX in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be outperformed by it's older brother from the 90s in corner sharpness.

 

[Lyncca]

Lyncca, you could just buy a new pair of shoes. They make great zooms.

You could also look into this.. Nikon | Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens | 1923

I have the lens you are refering to. Actually, I really like my primes, but that doesn't come in handy when you are stuck in one spot and can't move your feet like at a wedding during the ceremony. I will continue to use the primes, but I need some versatility too

Lyncca, I wish there was a way I could convince you to test out the 70-200 and 80-200 side by side like I did. There is enough of a difference, *especially* in wedding scenarios, that you would be better off waiting a YEAR, saving the difference and getting the 70-200 than settling for the 80-200. Just due to the slow focus speeds alone (not to mention that I found it hunted a lot in low light situations), you will lose at least 20% or more keepers. For me, that lens would be an exercise in frustration every time I pressed the shutter!

Edit: The 35mm is a F/2.8 and manual focus, I presume? Unless you are very comfortable with it, yes I would sell it and the 50mm F/1.8 in favor of the 50mm F/1.4 Sigma. In real life, the difference in getting the same composition between the 35mm and 50mm is 2-3 steps back.

OK ok, Jerry! I will see if my local camera store has both lenses. If not maybe someone on my local forum does so I can check both out. My 35mm is a 2.0, I think I had a typo earlier saying 2.8. But maybe I will sell both and upgrade to the 1.4.

I have a few weeks before I can get the money together, so have a little while to decide.

 

[Montana]

Also the 70-200 may cast a full frame circle, but it was developed in 2002, a time where Nikon had only DX digitals on the market, and the film industry had started to plummet into oblivion. It may cast a full frame circle, but it was clearly developed with DX in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be outperformed by it's older brother from the 90s in corner sharpness.

Thats what I was alluding to previously. The corner sharpness of that lens is horrid. If it were my money, I'd get the 80-200 and save some cash. If you get a 20% higher keeper rate from using a 70-200, you just need more practice with an 80-200.

Kinda like that Canon shooter that you were second shooting with, they were using Canon's 85 1.2 L. That is a slow focusing lens, so you gotta know how to use. Once you know how, its easy.

IMHO, I wouldn't hesitate to go primes. I am slowly switching over myself. And if weddings were my bread and butter, I'd switch even faster.