Nikon 70-200 vs Sigma 150-600 Sport sharpness.

thequintessentialman · Jul 3, 2017

Just wondering if y"all that have both of these lenses have noticed any major difference in sharpness between the two?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Trever1t · Jul 3, 2017

We talking B1 or V2 Nikon lens?

I don't own that Sigma but what I've found over time is Nikon coatings are awesome, focus is faster and the vr2 is amazing

thequintessentialman · Jul 3, 2017

OK, heres the deal; I have the older 80-200 AFS on a D800; the Sigma is noticeably sharper. I'm not happy with this and am considering an upgrade to the 70-200 AFS. My understanding is the optics did not greatly improve with the 70-200, just the electronics and slightly more span. The 80-200 has been back to Nikon a couple of times; they give no feedback. [FYI, this is the 80-200 AFS f2.8 that predates the present 70-200; it's not the cheaper 80-200 still in production.] I'm just trying to determine if my expectations are realistic.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

jaomul · Jul 4, 2017

Not sure about comparison etc, just be aware that Nikon 70-200 vr (the first one) was made before the first Nikon full frame digital camera, therefore the design was older and it supposedly vignette more than a lens in that price range should on a fullframe.

Derrel · Jul 4, 2017

Sounds like maybe you have a dud 80-200 AF-S **OR** the 36-MP resolving ability of the D800 is simply too much for the 80-200. I shot the 80-200 AF-S on the D3x for two years, and it was pretty good on 24-MP FX, whereas the 70-200 VR, the "first version" focused faster, handled more nimbly, but the corners of the image were NOT up to the full-frame, 24-megapixel D3x sensor; the 70-200VR did not really vignette on the D3x, but its corner sharpness was WEAK, even stopped down, so for landscapes and such, it was not a good zoom. The thing was, it was a VERY good crop-sensor lens, with very high sharpness over a smaller image circle, which is the only type of d-slr Nikon had when it was designed and released.

The NEWER 70-200 VR, the "second version" f/2.8 model is supposedly quite good; same goes for the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR; the f/4 verion is the one I am considering purchasing...SMALLISH, light, handles fast, and frankly, I never shot pictures I wanted to keep at f/2.8.

I think your 80-200 AF-S might be a clunker? Maybe? I dunno...depends I guess on one's expectations and uses for the lens. I shot my 60,90,and 180mm primes this last weekend, alongside three zooms...I was able to spot the prime lens shots by ultimate sharpness on 24-MP D610 frames of landscape stuff at the Oregon coast. Yet STILL, the zooms allowed me to get precise framing and compositions I wanted, so, I shot plenty with the three zooms I had.

I've grown tired of lugging an f/2.8 70-200 around when I never shoot at f/2.8, but start at f/4 or f/4.5 as my "wide" stop, and consider f/5.6 to f/8 to be the most-useful f/stops for me.

As an aside: I've read the fairly new Tamron 70-200/2.8 G-2 is a staggeringly sharp lens...The Angry Photographer, on YouTube, a real lens nut, enthused muchly about the new Tamron's price,value,performance, naming it the #1 Value lens in F-mount a few months back...high praise from him!

thequintessentialman · Jul 4, 2017

The 36mpx is unforgiving and the first thought was the camera surpassing the lenses. For most purposes it works OK but WHEN croping, quality falls off fast. My first clue was from getting better detail from the Sigma. This lens was designed for FF 35mm film cameras bit 36mpx is on par with med format. It worked well on the D200 I used previously. I just wanted to make sure my expectations were realistic before making the plung.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Derrel · Jul 4, 2017

Myu feeling is that if a person is comparing a 70-200 and its cropped frames with images made by a 150-600mm lens, the longer lens would likely demonstrate higher overall image quality, due to the narrower lens angle of view in the over-200mm range, and using the whole image area of the 36MP camera.

I base a lot of this on personal experience with the Nikon D2x and D3x cameras, which offered built-in, in-camera image cropping, where the user could switch from using the entire sensor, to using a cropped version of the sensor (a 2.0x crop in the D2x, and an APS-C crop in the D3x). The difference between usign the entire frame, and cropping it, makes a pretty noticeable difference.

I dunno...cropping-in on images usually does result in some loss of quality! And...when you crop a lot, you need to make sure the camera settings involve perfect focus, and a high enough shutter speed to ensure a crisp shot.

For longer-distance work, I would definitely look to the 150-600mm lens as being the superior tool, on any camera body.

thequintessentialman · Jul 4, 2017

OK, finally got this forum working on the big screen; cell phones were just not designed for serious text conversation regardless of what the kids say...

The D800 has an in camera setting for crop lenses (DX) but the two lenses in discussion here are both full frame, just to be clear. I'm talking about crop in processing only.

The comparison is a cropped image to a cropped image back at home on the PC. For instance, if I take a picture of a bee with the Sigma and then a similar shot with the Nikon, then crop, there is more detail in the Sigma image; the Nikon image starts to fuzz out. I've tested it on a tripod with remote release, manual focus, and the screen on the camera back on full zoom to proof the focus and the lens seems to be focusing as sharply as it is capable. It's starting to look like I probably already knew the answer to this question, I'm was just in denial over spending that much money on a replacement. I had something different on the wish list...

Thanks

Derrel · Jul 4, 2017

Just a thought: have you tried an AF microadjustment on the 80-200 lens? It's possible that the 80-200's sharpness/performance might improve if you perform an AF microadjustment for the particular lens/camera combo.

fmw · Jul 5, 2017

I had an 80-200 f2.8 D lens. It was a terrific performer. I think you may have a poor sample of the lens.

weepete · Jul 6, 2017

The 80-200 looks sharper. At least with this copy:

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Qualityg

benhasajeep · Jul 6, 2017

fmw said:
I had an 80-200 f2.8 D lens. It was a terrific performer. I think you may have a poor sample of the lens.

weepete said:
The 80-200 looks sharper. At least with this copy:

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor Lens Image Qualityg

I have an 80-200mm f/2.8d on a D800 and it is still a terrific lens on it. I've had it since new. I also have a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-s VR II. Frankly the only difference I notice between the 2 is AF speed. Now, I am not a pixel peeper either. I don't scan the pictures for every last minute detail zoomed right in at maximum. I have never needed a giant sized print where it would come out if it were a little soft.

The new Sigma is probably better. But I have a Sigma 150-500 OS and though it's decent for what I use it for. It in my opinion is a good lens for what it is.

thequintessentialman · Jul 6, 2017

I'll see if I can download diagnostic sheets and run some tests this weekend. I'm beginning to suspect though, that it may be time to relegate it back to D200 support duty sitting on the top shelf as a back up.

Have not mentioned this but it's been doing other pesky things too; in the past 8 years it's been back to Nikon twice for issues related to aperture, focus, and just not responding to controls. It's starting to show signs again. What I'm wrestling with is giving Nikon another $500 for three years (the pattern) or just bite the bullet and replace. If there is major improvement in the lens with the current VR2, then it's a no brainer. Thing is, there's a 100mm prime next up on the wish list but this is my main "snap shooter".