nikon 80-200 VS sigma 70-200?vs nikon 70-200 VRi

[devaji108]

hi guys another question and hoping to get feed back...
just as the title says sigma 70-200f2.8 VS. nikon 80-200f2.8 what would you get any why?
in the past i did have the 80-200 and love how sharp is was.

thinking about get on the these lenses prob. used but i could get new sigma for the price of the 70-200 VRi
thoughts?

 

[dewey]

I've never had the Sigma... but as far as the two Nikon's the difference I saw was VR. Both are equally as sharp to me. I really don't use the VR much, so I find myself using the 80-200 more often.

Maybe I'm afraid of breaking the 70-200 LOL! But image quality seems the same to me - both great lenses. I love that the 80-200 2.8 can be found for $600 used - makes it a steal.

For weddings the 70-200 is my choice since I'll use the VR. For sports and news - I stick with the 80-200.

 

[Mach0]

The 80-200 IQ is still good. Apparently, the 70-200 VR has rounded aperture blades, focuses quicker than the AF-D models. I haven't used the 80-200 but the 70-200 is useable at 2.8 and sharp as a tack when you stop down. It depends on what version of the 80-200 you get. The 2 ring afd and the afs versions are supposedly the best.

 

[dewey]

Yes mine is the 2 ring AFD - good stuff.

 

[greybeard]

I was talking to a news photographer from a local paper last night at graduation. she was using a D700 with a 2 ring Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I asked her about the difference it the one she had and the newer ones with VR. In her opinion, and she has been using these lenses professionally for a long time, there was no difference optically. She felt that a refurbished 80-200 for around a grand was the best way to go.

 

[Ballistics]

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Here are some samples I took with the Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS. I don't really know how much better the Nikon could actually be.

 

[greybeard]

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Here are some samples I took with the Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS. I don't really know how much better the Nikon could actually be.

Those are some great shots but, I think they would look great no matter what lens you had used as long as it wasn't just awful. The differences between the Nikon and Sigma are going to be subtle. One difference I have noticed between Nikon and 3rd party lenses is color balance. All my Nikon lenses have the same basic color balance where as the 3rd party lenses I have owned and used were always a little different. The 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron I use to own was quite a bit warmer than any of my Nikons. This may or may not be the case with the Sigma but, it is something to consider.

 

[Ballistics]

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Here are some samples I took with the Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS. I don't really know how much better the Nikon could actually be.

Those are some great shots but, I think they would look great no matter what lens you had used as long as it wasn't just awful. The differences between the Nikon and Sigma are going to be subtle. One difference I have noticed between Nikon and 3rd party lenses is color balance. All my Nikon lenses have the same basic color balance where as the 3rd party lenses I have owned and used were always a little different. The 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron I use to own was quite a bit warmer than any of my Nikons. This may or may not be the case with the Sigma but, it is something to consider.

I haven't noticed any color balance issues with the Sigma, at least nothing that has stood out.

I will say that I would not be able to get the same shots with the 55-200mm that I owned for 2 reasons.
1) The Sigma is a sharper, higher quality lens and the Nikon 55-200mm suffers from some horrid CA and poor contrast.
2) Most of these were shot around f/2.8-4, so you would need to have a fast lens in order to achieve the DOF in these shots.

I've never used the Tamron lens, but I've experience with both the 80-200mm and the 70-200mm VR, and at the time I couldn't come right out and say, the Nikon is obviously better.
Mind you, this was when I was less experienced, and I didn't really get to test the lens for more than an hour or so. So it's unfair for me to come out and say straight up that the Sigma is
a direct comparison. Having said that, I can't see where the Nikon could possibly be better.

 

[Mach0]

I haven't noticed any color balance issues with the Sigma, at least nothing that has stood out.

I will say that I would not be able to get the same shots with the 55-200mm that I owned for 2 reasons.
1) The Sigma is a sharper, higher quality lens and the Nikon 55-200mm suffers from some horrid CA and poor contrast.
2) Most of these were shot around f/2.8-4, so you would need to have a fast lens in order to achieve the DOF in these shots.

I've never used the Tamron lens, but I've experience with both the 80-200mm and the 70-200mm VR, and at the time I couldn't come right out and say, the Nikon is obviously better.
Mind you, this was when I was less experienced, and I didn't really get to test the lens for more than an hour or so. So it's unfair for me to come out and say straight up that the Sigma is
a direct comparison. Having said that, I can't see where the Nikon could possibly be better.

You've must have one helluva good copy of that sigma.

 

[Ballistics]

I haven't noticed any color balance issues with the Sigma, at least nothing that has stood out.

I will say that I would not be able to get the same shots with the 55-200mm that I owned for 2 reasons.
1) The Sigma is a sharper, higher quality lens and the Nikon 55-200mm suffers from some horrid CA and poor contrast.
2) Most of these were shot around f/2.8-4, so you would need to have a fast lens in order to achieve the DOF in these shots.

I've never used the Tamron lens, but I've experience with both the 80-200mm and the 70-200mm VR, and at the time I couldn't come right out and say, the Nikon is obviously better.
Mind you, this was when I was less experienced, and I didn't really get to test the lens for more than an hour or so. So it's unfair for me to come out and say straight up that the Sigma is
a direct comparison. Having said that, I can't see where the Nikon could possibly be better.

You've must have one helluva good copy of that sigma.

Why do you say that?

 

[Mach0]

Why do you say that?

Looked at the Exif on your Flickr and they looked good.From what I've seen, with 3rd parties, its hit or miss. If you have a great copy, hats off to you.That's great.
Unfortunately, many people haven't been as fortunate. I haven't checked the price on your lens but truthfully, I've seen VR 1's on KEH for
As litter as $1,200 with a 6 month warranty. With that being said, if its only a couple of hundred bucks, I'd always get the nikon. If its a huge difference and the gain isn't worth it, then third parties become more of an option.
I'm personally planning on getting the VR1. It's corners are no issue to me since I never put anything in the corners that need to be sharp. Plus, the focus speed and tracking on AF C is awesome and it has the focus lock button.

 

[Ballistics]

I don't know how true the whole good copy/bad copy thing is. At least, maybe it's true that a lens company may have some misfires, but I would imagine for every 1000 made, maybe 2 or 3 come out. I have 2 sigma lenses and right now I'm 2 for 2 with sharp, optically pleasing 3rd party lenses.

As far as the cheapest the OS lens goes for, used, you're looking at $800-900. Brand new, you're looking at $1250 with a 5 year warranty.
If photography was my occupation, and I made my living off of it, without question, no matter how good the Sigma was, I would opt for Nikon every time.
But as I've said, I cannot see where a Nikon VRII is worth the $1000 extra.

The 70-200mm with both the D7000 and D800 on AF-C is stellar. Focus is lightening quick.

Not to mention, Nikon is suing sigma over the stabilization system. 200mm @ 1/25th shutter speed is easily done with the OS. No BS.

I have more recent photos on my flickr of the Sigma on the D800 if you feel like wading through to find em. Or if you like I could link some more.

 

[Mach0]

I don't know how true the whole good copy/bad copy thing is. At least, maybe it's true that a lens company may have some misfires, but I would imagine for every 1000 made, maybe 2 or 3 come out. I have 2 sigma lenses and right now I'm 2 for 2 with sharp, optically pleasing 3rd party lenses.

As far as the cheapest the OS lens goes for, used, you're looking at $800-900. Brand new, you're looking at $1250 with a 5 year warranty.
If photography was my occupation, and I made my living off of it, without question, no matter how good the Sigma was, I would opt for Nikon every time.
But as I've said, I cannot see where a Nikon VRII is worth the $1000 extra.

The 70-200mm with both the D7000 and D800 on AF-C is stellar. Focus is lightening quick.

Not to mention, Nikon is suing sigma over the stabilization system. 200mm @ 1/25th shutter speed is easily done with the OS. No BS.

I have more recent photos on my flickr of the Sigma on the D800 if you feel like wading through to find em. Or if you like I could link some more.

Share em. Btw I was talking the VR1. VR 2 is nice But I don't need it.

 

[Ballistics]

All but the dancer are D800. All Sigma 70-200mm OS

 

[Ballistics]

I don't know how true the whole good copy/bad copy thing is. At least, maybe it's true that a lens company may have some misfires, but I would imagine for every 1000 made, maybe 2 or 3 come out. I have 2 sigma lenses and right now I'm 2 for 2 with sharp, optically pleasing 3rd party lenses.

As far as the cheapest the OS lens goes for, used, you're looking at $800-900. Brand new, you're looking at $1250 with a 5 year warranty.
If photography was my occupation, and I made my living off of it, without question, no matter how good the Sigma was, I would opt for Nikon every time.
But as I've said, I cannot see where a Nikon VRII is worth the $1000 extra.

The 70-200mm with both the D7000 and D800 on AF-C is stellar. Focus is lightening quick.

Not to mention, Nikon is suing sigma over the stabilization system. 200mm @ 1/25th shutter speed is easily done with the OS. No BS.

I have more recent photos on my flickr of the Sigma on the D800 if you feel like wading through to find em. Or if you like I could link some more.

Share em. Btw I was talking the VR1. VR 2 is nice But I don't need it.

I know you were talking about the VR1... I just said the VR2 because it's the only lens available in retail since I didn't buy my sigma used.