80-200mm or 70-200mm sigma

[bemmermazda]

Nikon 80-200mm 2.8

Sigma 70-200mm HSM 2.8

I realize the sigma will focus fast. And because i will be using this for sports thats very important but. Which lens is sharper and better optically?
The sigma is notably cheaper and i guess that worries me because its so new.

So which would be more better suited for sports?

 

[Phranquey]

This is the lens I had before getting my 70-200mm VR.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm


Fantastic lens that can be had for a decent price.

 

[Antithesis]

The 80-200 AF-D focuses relatively slow on anything below the d200, and not at all on the d40/60. I currently have the Sigma and it focuses very fast. If you stop the lens down to f4 or 5.6, it is an extremely sharp lens, but is pretty soft at f2.8. I'm actually in the process of selling it right now, and I'll be getting the Nikon 70-200 VR when I can afford it. I have a friend who might sell me his old one for $700 :O

 

[CanAm]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

This is the best buy in 80-200 f/2.8 zooms going. It offers fantastic performance at about the same price as some people pay for used or garbage like Sigma.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] garbage like Sigma.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

I wasn't aware that Sigma was garbage, considering their EX products are usually close to or are on par with the Canon L series stuff...

Sounds like a pretty narrow minded elitist to me.
[/FONT]

 

[Sw1tchFX]

My copy of the 80-200 AF-D is razor sharp wide open and I have full confidence with shooting it at f/2.8. It focuses very fast on bodies such as the D2h/x. On my D70, the AF is pretty mediocre, sports is difficult with it. on a D2, it would be no problem.

So i've heard Nikons AF-S is faster than Sigma's HSM. Makes sense since Sigma had to reverse-engineer their HSM to work with Nikon bodies, instead of Nikon telling them how it works.

I would try to get an 80-200 AF-S if possible, it's ridiculously sharp, has AF-S, and can be had for a little under $1000.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

I don't know if "garbage" is the best word, but i agree that their products, as well as their quality assurance, is sub par. They may very well be great products when they work, but when they don't - what good does all the crinkle finish and the big "EX" help you?

As someone who's still struggling to reach a point where my 70-200 is working properly (3 months and counting, after replacement, mind you), i don't recommend Sigma's products to anyone.
Right now, i just want it to work well enough for me to be able to sell it without feeling bad for the buyer. After that, i'll move up to the Canon.

I suggest you do the same - if you're not just playing around, and need your equipment to be there when you are, get the real thing. When a company replaces a malfunctioning lens with another malfunctioning lens (a Mark II 70-200 f2.8) then you can pretty much erase them off any A list they're trying to get onto, or think they are on.

My $900.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

My 80-200 will be here via UPS today or tomorrow, so I'll let you know how it is for sports. I'll post up a couple photos for ya as soon as I have em.

 

[CanAm]

I don't know if "garbage" is the best word, but i agree that their products, as well as their quality assurance, is sub par. They may very well be great products when they work, but when they don't - what good does all the crinkle finish and the big "EX" help you?

As someone who's still struggling to reach a point where my 70-200 is working properly (3 months and counting, after replacement, mind you), i don't recommend Sigma's products to anyone.
Right now, i just want it to work well enough for me to be able to sell it without feeling bad for the buyer. After that, i'll move up to the Canon.

I suggest you do the same - if you're not just playing around, and need your equipment to be there when you are, get the real thing. When a company replaces a malfunctioning lens with another malfunctioning lens (a Mark II 70-200 f2.8) then you can pretty much erase them off any A list they're trying to get onto, or think they are on.

My $900.

You do know that Canon has shipped out lemons and replaced them with lemons as well, right? What good is the red band and the red L do you?

I have the bottom of the barrel Sigma stuff, and they work great. Focus is perfectly sharp, chromatic aberration is minimal, and build quality is actually not bad.

What exactly is wrong with your 70-200? You failed to enumerate whatever is wrong with it.

 

[Phranquey]

Geez, I didn't realize that link would cause this much of a stir...:lmao:

I just posted it because it was the top one off of google to show what lens I was talking about....

 

[Garbz]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

I wasn't aware that Sigma was garbage, considering their EX products are usually close to or are on par with the Canon L series stuff...

Sounds like a pretty narrow minded elitist to me.
[/FONT]

What Ken Rockwell Narrow minded???? Elitist????? Not a complete dick???? Noooo couldn't be right?

In case you can't tell I'm being sarcastic. May be a would have helped, but you would do very well to ignore pretty much all the trash he has ever muttered ever. I used to agree with him on one topic and that was colour management. Now that I have a wide gamut monitor I realised how wrong he is on that account too.

I mean he even has "reviews" on his site of products he admits never having used, but dare to say they are useless.

www.photozone.de should be the first stop for lenses. Loads of objective tests and image comparisons, graphs, performance stats etc.