Nikon vs Sigma

[robbins.photo]

That is a FALSE STATEMENT. The v1 is a FX lens. It also has a slightest advantage in the center over the v2 whereas the v2 has the better edges.

I suppose if one wants to be hyper-technical it is technically an FX lens , though no one who has ever shot one on an FX body and compared the results between the VRI and the VRII would ever, under any circumstances, recommend you purchase one for an FX body.

While the VRI version does appear to work fantastic for DX bodies, on FX bodies pretty much every single person I've ever spoken with and every single review ever written in which the lens is tested on an FX body and compared to the VRII recommends you forgo the VRI for the VRII

So, is that enough of a pound of flesh? Have I properly appeased the camera gods?

 

[shadowlands]

I'm an "all Nikon" guy, but that's just me. I recently sold my Nikon 80-200 f2.8D and it was awesome. No complaints.
I found a deal on a used VRI 70-200mm f2.8 and I'm happy. I know the VRII is better, but I'm good with what I have.

 

[Derrel]

I have owned both The v1 and the V2 Nikon 70 to 200 mm lenses. They are both exceptional lenses. And as far as I'm concerned there is no aftermarket equal.

There's very few lenses that give results such as these 2.

I've owned a few f/2.8 zooms in this category over the last 15 years. My impressions are: Nikon 80-200/2.8 one-ring, push-pull, two examples of the "first version": screw-driven focus, okay optics, but not "great", good for a $350-$500 lens, mechanically clunky A/M switch and very "Eighties", NO tripod foot from Nikon, only aftermarket, but also about one full pound lighter than other Nikons in this general type;

Nikon 70-200 VR-1 bought it the week it came out, used the hell out of it, sold it in December 2015 for $1100, payed $1699 new over a decade earlier--resale value was extremely good! This lens has **THE BEST** handling of any tele-zoom due to the slender barrel. it is an FX-capable lens, but the corners are not very good at landscape distances,even stopped down to f/7.1 when on 24MP Nikon FX, however as Trever1 stated, the center performance is VERY good, this lens has extrremely beautiful defocus backgrounds, and has a very high tested resolution over the DX frame area, this lens was DESIGNED TO BE BEST on the 29mm DX image circle; on Nikon D2x or D3x focusing speed is phenomenal,tracking on the D2x is astoundingly good. This is a gorgeous bokeh lens! Gorgeous bokeh. Weakness: flares like a Knighted Basta** when shot toward the sun...egregiously weak flare control...one of the absolute worst lenses for shooting right toward the sun. Whole frame yellow flare can be had if you shoot just right. Not kidding. Strength: maintains close to stated focal length when focusing closer and closer: new VR-2 is a 134mm effective focal length at minimum focus distance, see the Thom Hogan review for comparison images of FL loss. Weakness: focus lock buttons wayyyy too far fwd for my taste.

Canon 70-200 L IS USM...a big, fat straight tube. Good focusing, very good optics 70-145mm, top end is lesser, but that's normal. Again, a big, fat pig of a lens...crappy ergonomics IMHO. Bokeh is average, not creamy like the VR-1, but it is a fine lens. IS works great. Resists flaring quite well.

Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S, made 1999-2004...has four mid-barrel focus hold buttons, makes it a good portrait/modeling kind of lens. LIke the Canon L-IS-USM, also a fairly straight, fat pig. Ergonomics on par with the Canon, 'cept for the focus lock buttons, which are super-useful for some shooting&focusing styles, especially for shooting talls.THis is a good lens for shooting TALLS, of people. Better corners on 24MP FX than the VR-1, which is why I sold the VR-1. For a DX shooter, the 70-200 VR-1 is, again, one of the finest handling lenses I've ever seen. Period. 80-200 AF-S $700-$995, not that commonly seen used any more. MUCH better optics than the cheaper 80-200 one-ring, and also more ED glass and better optics than the 80-200 two-ring.

****
Have not owned or shot the VR-2 or the NEWEST Tamron 70-200 VC...have looked at huuundreds of images from both though...the way I see it is 1) Sigma glass = consistently a Yellow color rendering, the exact opposite of Nikon, and perfect for a Canon shooter. Tamron VC: cooler color rending than Sigma, close to Nikon, but cooler than Nikon, but still looks 'close'. Tamron VC..bokeh is roughish...the lens has been optimized for too much hardness, not enough spherical aberration left uncorrected, so the bokeh is fairly average, but it has that hard, super-clinical look many younger shooters like, and it tests out well on test charts. For many people, the VC is the zoom that makes the most sense; high rez, high contrast, a hard, hyper-realistic rendering (not optimal for boudoir or for nudes or portraiture).

There's a balance between letting the lens have more "character", better, smoother bokeh, a softer, smoother transition from the focused zone to the out of focus zone, avoiding the use of aspherical elements that create onion-ring bokeh (Tamron 24-70 VC's biggest weakness) or hashy bokeh in the defocus zone. Nikon has designed a FEW lenses that are best at "pretty images": 85/1.4, 105 and 135 DC, 200 VR, 70-200 VR-1 among the best bokeh monsters.

Depends what you want the images to look and feel like...on APS-C, the VR-1 is still the "prettiest image" zoom ever made. The Tamron VC is maybe the best value for a high-contrast, hard-edged, uber-crisp image. How the pictures look, how they "feel" is very hard to describe, and it depends on how the designers make the lens to render. Canon 135/2 -L for example...beautiful rendering...VR-1, beautiful rendering on people on the DX frame...Canon 50/1.8 EF-II, renders like a**...Nikon 85/1.8 G too hard-edged, too clinical for people, too perfect for pretty bokeh.

Sigma 70-200/2.8...the f/2.8 lens that you dare not shoot at f/2.8...

 

[Trever1t]

That is a FALSE STATEMENT. The v1 is a FX lens. It also has a slightest advantage in the center over the v2 whereas the v2 has the better edges.

I suppose if one wants to be hyper-technical it is technically an FX lens , though no one who has ever shot one on an FX body and compared the results between the VRI and the VRII would ever, under any circumstances, recommend you purchase one for an FX body.

While the VRI version does appear to work fantastic for DX bodies, on FX bodies pretty much every single person I've ever spoken with and every single review ever written in which the lens is tested on an FX body and compared to the VRII recommends you forgo the VRI for the VRII

So, is that enough of a pound of flesh? Have I properly appeased the camera gods?

No. Having used both, I can say you're statement is half truth. Yes the V2 is stronger in the corners AND faster focus but prior to the release of v2 nobody I know complained. The V1 is a fine lens and on an fx body is just wonderful but the v2 is better if you can afford it

 

[robbins.photo]

No. Having used both, I can say you're statement is half truth. Yes the V2 is stronger in the corners AND faster focus but prior to the release of v2 nobody I know complained. The V1 is a fine lens and on an fx body is just wonderful but the v2 is better if you can afford it

A couple of things you apparently missed before responding to the original posting:

"I haven't shot the Nikkor VRI or VRII myself personally, from the reviews I read their image quality is rated higher and of course they hold their resell value better, the only question really is does that warrant the difference in price for you personally. "

Note, I fully disclosed I hadn't shot either and that I was basing this off of reviews that I read comparing both. Apparently your opinion differs from, well pretty much everyone else who has shot both and posted a review. So be it. Perhaps you can take the time to write them all emails taking them to task for posting what you consider to be "half truths".

"The thing about the Nikkor VR1 you should consider is that it is designed for DX rather than FX"

Note that it does not say the VR1 is a DX lens, it states that it was designed more with DX in mind.. which is true. The lens was released I think back in 2003, as I recall Nikon's first FX camera was the D3 which if memory serves came out in like 2007. This statement could have possible been clarified, and I had I thought someone would have made such a huge hairy deal about this I probably would have. Lesson learned.

So, are we all happy now or do I need to be shot for this outrage? Let me know soon if you can, I've got a thing at 4 today and need to know if I should call and cancel. Thanks.

 

[Derrel]

The 70-200 VR-1 was designed in the early 2000's, for use on 2.7 MP and 4.2 MP APS-C sensor Nikon cameras. it has very solid MTF on the 29mm APS-C image circle, but the lens was designed wayyyyy before Nikon had a full-frame camera. dPreview compared the VR-1 against Canon's 70-200/2.8 L IS USM Their verdict? The VR-1 was a better lens on APS-C than the Canon was on APS-C. The Canon 70-200/2.8 L IS USM was a better FF lens on a FF camera than the VR-1 was on the then-best Nikon FF camera.

The VR-1 started to become insufficient once the 12-MP FX D3 hit the streets...it has crappy edge performance on 24-mp FX...it simply was NOT designed for a 43mm diameter image circle. It has a skinny barrel, for superb handling, but was designed for what an APS-C camera needs: really HIGH performance over a very small sensor. A lens designed for a smaller sensor, like an Olympus m4/3 sensor needs to be VERY good over a very small area. This was the VR-1's design parameter: to be outstanding on APS-C.

Once we got the D3x at 24MP FX..the VR-1 was effectively done for, for landscapes you can literally SEE the crappy corner resolution...it falls flat on its ass at 24MP FX. On single-person headshots, you probably will not see the issues it has so much as you will at Infinity on a landscape. When the D800 hit, thousands of VR-1's were sold off because it's just not a high-megapixel, FX-optimal lens.

We never heard any issues about the VR-1 for most of its life because the VR-1 spent most of its lifetime at being shot on 4.2-, 6-,10-,and 12-megapixel APS-C cameras by 95% of Nikon users. The VR-2 coincided with the 2009 arrival of the D3x. The VR-2 was made to carry Nikon into the 36-megapixel and beyond era, and the 24-MP on APS-C era that seemed impossible even in 2009.

 

[ruifo]

The Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC is top in line. Here my sample shots with it: Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD

 

[HeldInTheMoment]

Thank you all for the great information and help thus far!

Right now I am using a DX body, as you know, with intentions of going to a FX body in the future. It seems to be the best options for my situations are either the Nikkor 70-200 VRII or the Tamron 70-200 VC.

I am also considering the Nikkor 80-200; though, I see the 70-200 is much more popular. Anyone care to share a thought or two on that?

 

[Braineack]

cost : performance.

Best zoom lenses for the Nikon D610 | DxOMark

the 80-200 didnt even make this list and it still costs more than the Tamron -- which is rated at #1.

There are however, some pros for the 80-200 (like the focus lock), but that's a decision you have to make.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you all for the great information and help thus far!

Right now I am using a DX body, as you know, with intentions of going to a FX body in the future. It seems to be the best options for my situations are either the Nikkor 70-200 VRII or the Tamron 70-200 VC.

I am also considering the Nikkor 80-200; though, I see the 70-200 is much more popular. Anyone care to share a thought or two on that?

I'd probably go with the 70-200 mm myself, the older 80-200 is a bit slower to AF and since I use mine a lot for sports/wildlife I wanted the faster autofocus.

 

[HeldInTheMoment]

Most of my work is portraits and weddings...sometimes I need a fast AF for sports, but not often. I still think the Tamron 70-200 or Nikkor 70-200 VRII are the best options.

Now is comes to cost and budgeting...

 

[Derrel]

cost : performance.
Best zoom lenses for the Nikon D610 | DxOMark
the 80-200 didnt even make this list and it still costs more than the Tamron -- which is rated at #1.
There are however, some pros for the 80-200 (like the focus lock), but that's a decision you have to make.

This list of rankings doesn't take into account how the pictures actually "LOOK". For example, Nikon's classic trio of portraiture lenses are the old 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, and the 105mm and 135mm Defocus Control lenses. In these lenses, the designers struck a balance between leaving in enough spherical aberration to get a sort of soft, creamy background rendering. The 85/1.4 AF-D has a pretty high sharpness in the central core of the image, but the edges of the frame are not so sharp. The defocused areas have more spherical aberration, so the bokeh zone looks softer, less-distinct, more fuzzy. Nikon's design parameter was three-dimensionality in rendering of "people". Not test chart score maximization. THis is why the old VR-1 is still a wonderful tool on APS-C, and most other lenses are nowhere near its equal in image rendering, in "pretty" rendering.

There's a lens I KNOW you have said you would like to own, B--the 58mm f/1.4 Nikkor...again, another lens designed by Japanese designers (traditionally bokeh-aware at Nikon), from a company that knows about purpose-built lens design. It has horrible field curvature. It makes very,very interesting images. It has a very odd mix of deliberately left-in optical aberrations. On a test chart, its figures look like sH*+. A $300, used 60mm Micro-Nikkor macro lens beats the pants off of it on test chart scores, because the macro lens has an almost perfectly flat field and is optically very close to perfected...it has the test-chart award winners of high contrast and fine spatial resolution...but the 60's portraits look like cr*p!

The idea that a higher resolution lens is better, or best, can easily ignore the way the pictures actually LOOK. For example...probably the UGLIEST lenses for pictures of people, or of beautiful, tranquil scenes are the various macro lenses...the 55,60,and 100 and 105mm macro lenses. Ugly. Fugly.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 has that hyper-real, hard-edged rendering that many younger people seem to want, and it TESTS OUT very highly on resolution charts. The 85 1.4 and 1.8 G models are bitingly sharp, but their pictures look very computer-generated, very hard, and they lack the kind of 3-D rendering Nikon designed for the 85/1.4 AF-D, 105DC and 135 DC teles, and the new 58mm f/1.4 G, and that Canon designed for the 85/1.2-L and 135/2-L lenses.

Lens design is shifting toward higher test chart performance and harder edge-rendition. Making the edges of objects renderer crisply, with crisp edge definition makes test chart resolutions skyrocket, but it kills the softer edges on the circles of confusion that create beautiful bokeh, and which help to give a smoother, softer-edged, greater degree of out-of-focus as the distance behind the subject increases. The qualities that make a lens test out higher tend to lower its test chart scores. That's why the old 1990's designed 105 DC tests lower than a 105 VR-G macro, but one is one of the pretties images every designed, and the other one has hyper-saturated color and high micro-contrast and the images look hard, exaggeratedly color-boosted, and awful (the 105 VR macro).

I don't shoot a lot of test charts, so to me, the way a lens renders, how it "draws" makes my 85/1.4 AF-D a much-preferable lens for portraits than my 85 1.8 G, which is my landscape and High-Rez lens.

Take a look here: Nikon 58mm F/1.4G Lens Tested At DxOMark | Nikon Rumors

The Nikon 58/1.4 is the second-WORST by score out of the six tested lenses. The Carl Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar has some of the most ugly images you'll ever see. Same with the Sigma 35./1.4 ART lens...one of THE highest-resolution prime lenses available today, and one of the absolute UGLIEST picture-makers you'll ever see, on low-par with the Canon 50/1.8 EF-II...horrible bokeh rendering...ugly, harsh, hard bokeh that begins inches behind the focus plane's end.

The third-party lens makers have started catering to test-chart performance. There is a reason Canon and Nikon tele-zoom lenses are still the preferred lenses for those who are not after "value" or the highest test chart score per dollar spent.

 

[Braineack]

all valid points. I give my suggestions based on what I would do, not much else. I tried to caveat it -- but you shouldn't discount teh 80-200 based on anything I might say.

It's hard to miss the mark on a 200 2.8, but I haven't been too impressed from what I've seen of the Sigma. If you can afford a VRII, then more power to you, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it's a fantastic lens that will serve a lifetime and retain its value.

 

[SquarePeg]

cost : performance.
Best zoom lenses for the Nikon D610 | DxOMark
the 80-200 didnt even make this list and it still costs more than the Tamron -- which is rated at #1.
There are however, some pros for the 80-200 (like the focus lock), but that's a decision you have to make.

This list of rankings doesn't take into account how the pictures actually "LOOK". For example, Nikon's classic trio of portraiture lenses are the old 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, and the 105mm and 135mm Defocus Control lenses. In these lenses, the designers struck a balance between leaving in enough spherical aberration to get a sort of soft, creamy background rendering. The 85/1.4 AF-D has a pretty high sharpness in the central core of the image, but the edges of the frame are not so sharp. The defocused areas have more spherical aberration, so the bokeh zone looks softer, less-distinct, more fuzzy. Nikon's design parameter was three-dimensionality in rendering of "people". Not test chart score maximization. THis is why the old VR-1 is still a wonderful tool on APS-C, and most other lenses are nowhere near its equal in image rendering, in "pretty" rendering.

There's a lens I KNOW you have said you would like to own, B--the 58mm f/1.4 Nikkor...again, another lens designed by Japanese designers (traditionally bokeh-aware at Nikon), from a company that knows about purpose-built lens design. It has horrible field curvature. It makes very,very interesting images. It has a very odd mix of deliberately left-in optical aberrations. On a test chart, its figures look like sH*+. A $300, used 60mm Micro-Nikkor macro lens beats the pants off of it on test chart scores, because the macro lens has an almost perfectly flat field and is optically very close to perfected...it has the test-chart award winners of high contrast and fine spatial resolution...but the 60's portraits look like cr*p!

The idea that a higher resolution lens is better, or best, can easily ignore the way the pictures actually LOOK. For example...probably the UGLIEST lenses for pictures of people, or of beautiful, tranquil scenes are the various macro lenses...the 55,60,and 100 and 105mm macro lenses. Ugly. Fugly.

The Tamron 70-200/2.8 has that hyper-real, hard-edged rendering that many younger people seem to want, and it TESTS OUT very highly on resolution charts. The 85 1.4 and 1.8 G models are bitingly sharp, but their pictures look very computer-generated, very hard, and they lack the kind of 3-D rendering Nikon designed for the 85/1.4 AF-D, 105DC and 135 DC teles, and the new 58mm f/1.4 G, and that Canon designed for the 85/1.2-L and 135/2-L lenses.

Lens design is shifting toward higher test chart performance and harder edge-rendition. Making the edges of objects renderer crisply, with crisp edge definition makes test chart resolutions skyrocket, but it kills the softer edges on the circles of confusion that create beautiful bokeh, and which help to give a smoother, softer-edged, greater degree of out-of-focus as the distance behind the subject increases. The qualities that make a lens test out higher tend to lower its test chart scores. That's why the old 1990's designed 105 DC tests lower than a 105 VR-G macro, but one is one of the pretties images every designed, and the other one has hyper-saturated color and high micro-contrast and the images look hard, exaggeratedly color-boosted, and awful (the 105 VR macro).

I don't shoot a lot of test charts, so to me, the way a lens renders, how it "draws" makes my 85/1.4 AF-D a much-preferable lens for portraits than my 85 1.8 G, which is my landscape and High-Rez lens.

Take a look here: Nikon 58mm F/1.4G Lens Tested At DxOMark | Nikon Rumors

The Nikon 58/1.4 is the second-WORST by score out of the six tested lenses. The Carl Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar has some of the most ugly images you'll ever see. Same with the Sigma 35./1.4 ART lens...one of THE highest-resolution prime lenses available today, and one of the absolute UGLIEST picture-makers you'll ever see, on low-par with the Canon 50/1.8 EF-II...horrible bokeh rendering...ugly, harsh, hard bokeh that begins inches behind the focus plane's end.

The third-party lens makers have started catering to test-chart performance. There is a reason Canon and Nikon tele-zoom lenses are still the preferred lenses for those who are not after "value" or the highest test chart score per dollar spent.

This ^^^ reminded me of this> The Problem with Modern Optics The link was posted on another forum that I frequent and I just read it earlier today.

 

[Derrel]

SquarePeg wrote--
This ^^^ reminded me of this> The Problem with Modern Optics The link was posted on another forum that I frequent and I just read it earlier today.

Oh, wow!!! I had not seen that guy's blog before. Wow...I know what he means about the 35mm f/2 AF-D Nikkor lens...one of my favorites!

I was shocked to see him highlight the ugly rendering of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens. Not long after it came out, I saw a number of "social media photographers" let's call them, people who bought the lens based on reviews written by young, web-based photo writers on clickbait sites. After seeing two 35mm Sigma ART lengthy sets shot outdoors, portraiture, I was really unimpressed by its ugly, vibrating background rendition on shrubbery and trees...just hideous. A lens test chart is not a three-dimensional subject. The web today is filled with people looking for lens sharpness scores as a buying guide.