Decent glass, Nikon or 3rd party?

[djacobox372]

If you are spending $700-$900 on a lens... The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a good option if auto focus speed isn't an issue for you.

$700-$900 will buy u the af-s 80-200mm which focuses very fast--likely just as fast as the newest af-s lenses.

 

[djacobox372]

If you don't need VR look for a Nikon 80-200 AF-S 2.8. It's an excellent older pro lens, big and heavy, but excellent. Only to be bettered by the 70-200 VR II and it will hold its value very well. KEH often has them avaliable and higher prices than other sources but KEH sells top quality and in my opinion is worth the extra expense.

There's a bunch of these on eBay right now

 

[TheLost]

$700-$900 will buy u the af-s 80-200mm which focuses very fast--likely just as fast as the newest af-s lenses.

The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S (older) defiantly is faster then the 80-200 f/2.8D (newer)... however, all AF-S lenses aren't the same (For example, the AF-S 55-200 nikon lens is super slow while the 70-300VR is super fast)

I found the Sigma to be faster focusing then the old AF-S 80-200. For image quality the 80-200 wins (any of them).. but for fast action i wasn't a fan.

 

[Tarazed]

Perhaps it was a poor copy? I find it hard to believe that the sigma would be noticeably faster than the 80-200 AF-S?? That lens was designed for fast action, its a pro lens.

 

[djacobox372]

The 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S (older) defiantly is faster then the 80-200 f/2.8D (newer)... however, all AF-S lenses aren't the same (For example, the AF-S 55-200 nikon lens is super slow while the 70-300VR is super fast)

I found the Sigma to be faster focusing then the old AF-S 80-200. For image quality the 80-200 wins (any of them).. but for fast action i wasn't a fan.

I own both a Nikon 70-200mm vr1 afs and a 80-200mm afs and I detect zero difference in focus speed. If the sigma is faster than I would bet not by much.

 

[Tarazed]

@djacobox372 which do you prefer? Are the corners softer FF on the VR I? Is the 70-200 a worthy upgrade to the 80-200?

 

[thunderkyss]

Perhaps it was a poor copy? I find it hard to believe that the sigma would be noticeably faster than the 80-200 AF-S?? That lens was designed for fast action, its a pro lens.

Isn't the Sigma also a pro lens? Was it designed for slow action?

 

[Tarazed]

It's a sigma?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Do people expect to get an answer "the cheaper glass is just as good" or what

 

[Benco]

Do people expect to get an answer "the cheaper glass is just as good" or what

For a given value of good. Sigma lenses are pretty much half the price of their Nikon equivalents, are they only half as 'good' though?

 

[Tarazed]

That depends on which lens and individual sample, but I would say 3rd party lenses often provide more than an exact value to cost ratio. An example would be the new sigma 35 1.4. However, IMHO, if you do not need VR the 80-200 AFS is better than the 3rd party lens for the dollar.

 

[daggah]

Do people expect to get an answer "the cheaper glass is just as good" or what

LensTip just tested the Sigma 50-150 OS, and called it one of the sharpest zooms they ever tested. It doesn't have the fastest AF speed and it suffers a bit from flare, but other than that, they really liked it.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Always drawbacks to second best products, even if they are more than half as good for less than half the price.

 

[daggah]

Always drawbacks to second best products, even if they are more than half as good for less than half the price.

Well, in the case of the 50-150, it's not second best to anything, because Nikon hasn't bothered to make an equivalent.

Secondly, plenty of first-party lenses have flare problems.

Edit: sometimes, the third-party options not only match their more expensive first-party counterpart, but are actually better. Case in point: the new Sigma 35mm 1.4.

 

[skinnyboy_74]

agreed with the sigma 35 1.4....picked it up about a month ago and it is one amazing piece of glass!!!!