Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II - something

[Destin]

well... OP is posting about the version 2 from sigma and you're comparing it to the version 1 (80-200). kinda unfair..

same price so what's unfair?

agreed. We're comparing what can be had in the $800-900 range. Sure the version II nikon 70-200 will smoke the siggy, but it's twice the price so it damn well better!

 

[chaosrealm93]

maybe just me then.. i tend to compare things by generation.

 

[Derrel]

Just to be clear: the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D "two-ring" lens does date from 1997, but it is NOT the "first generation" of the lens...it is the third model in the Autofocus era...the earlier two versions had one ring, and had entirely different AF limiter mechanisms. I owned two of those early, one-ring versions, which weigh a full pound less than later models. As noted in this Ken Rockwell review, this lens was, at one time, Nikon's top professional-caliber 80-200 zoom lens...it's pretty hard to compare Nikon's top-level equipment from the late 1990's with anything Sigma has made..with Sigma, you never know when something will fail, fall apart, or collapse on itself...with a pro-grade Nikkor lens, you can expect a 30-year lifetime without a single incidence of service...

I honestly think it's quite fair to compare a 1997 Nikon lens design with a $800 Sigma. The Nikkor will have the right color rendering; the Sigma will have that Sigma yellowish cast to all its images. The Nikkor is made entirely of metal...the finish will still be on the barrel in another 20 years...the Sigma sparkle-finish coating will begin flaking off in five years. The Sigma will lose half its resale value in five years...the Nikkor will maintain its value, or even appreciate slightly over the next five years. I own three Sigma lenses currently, their 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM, their 180/3.5 HSM EX Macro, and their 18-125 DC. They all have the typical yellow Sigma color rendering, which is very much opposite of Nikon's cool Nikkor color rendering.

I dunno...the two-ring 80-200 is a pretty solid lens for $800-$900 in today's market....and it is> NOT< I repeat, is NOT, the first version of the 80-200 for Nikon.... Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)

 

[TordFuglstad]

I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!

Those photos were very good! That sigma looks so crisp and sharp!

 

[TordFuglstad]

Just to be clear: the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D "two-ring" lens does date from 1997, but it is NOT the "first generation" of the lens...it is the third model in the Autofocus era...the earlier two versions had one ring, and had entirely different AF limiter mechanisms. I owned two of those early, one-ring versions, which weigh a full pound less than later models. As noted in this Ken Rockwell review, this lens was, at one time, Nikon's top professional-caliber 80-200 zoom lens...it's pretty hard to compare Nikon's top-level equipment from the late 1990's with anything Sigma has made..with Sigma, you never know when something will fail, fall apart, or collapse on itself...with a pro-grade Nikkor lens, you can expect a 30-year lifetime without a single incidence of service...

I honestly think it's quite fair to compare a 1997 Nikon lens design with a $800 Sigma. The Nikkor will have the right color rendering; the Sigma will have that Sigma yellowish cast to all its images. The Nikkor is made entirely of metal...the finish will still be on the barrel in another 20 years...the Sigma sparkle-finish coating will begin flaking off in five years. The Sigma will lose half its resale value in five years...the Nikkor will maintain its value, or even appreciate slightly over the next five years. I own three Sigma lenses currently, their 100-300 f/4 EX-HSM, their 180/3.5 HSM EX Macro, and their 18-125 DC. They all have the typical yellow Sigma color rendering, which is very much opposite of Nikon's cool Nikkor color rendering.

I dunno...the two-ring 80-200 is a pretty solid lens for $800-$900 in today's market....and it is> NOT< I repeat, is NOT, the first version of the 80-200 for Nikon.... Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)

I've had a rubbish sigma 70-300 lens for over 4 years now, it's probably the cheapest lens on the market.. The build quality isn't excellent in any way, but it looks like it did when i got it.. And it has been through some pretty harsh environments over here in Norway and Greece. So i wouldn't say Sigma lenses sucks that much. I even heard the 70-200 is the best lens sigma has ever built, so I'm nor afraid of that.

When it comes to the yellowness, Jared Polin stated in his review on YouTube that the Sigma was near to equal to the 70-200VRII when it comes to colours and bokeh but that it looses in sharpness and stuff like that. And I've never experienced any yellowness on my pictures with my totally crappy sigma lens yet.

 

[Destin]

I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!

Those photos were very good! That sigma looks so crisp and sharp!

It is. My copy is sharper than I'll ever NEED a lens to be. One thing to watch out for, is if you get a camera with more megapixels (D7000) it will show more imperfections in the lens. But my sigma 70-200 on my D80 has been a great, sharp combo for me.

 

[TordFuglstad]

I have the sigma you're talking about. I've had it since october of last year, bought it brand new from my local camera shop. I've noticed that in low light it likes to focus hunt, but i can't comment on how this compares to a Nikon lens, and it may well be my camera's fault. Here are some example shots with it from my D80, ignore the watermarks, I know they are ridiculous. I've noticed that wide open it's a little soft around the edges, but stopped down to f4 it's sharp everywhere. It does get a little softer at 200mm, but it's still very useable. I don't regret getting it over the Nikon 80-200 one bit. It's been a heck of a lens for me!

Those photos were very good! That sigma looks so crisp and sharp!

It is. My copy is sharper than I'll ever NEED a lens to be. One thing to watch out for, is if you get a camera with more megapixels (D7000) it will show more imperfections in the lens. But my sigma 70-200 on my D80 has been a great, sharp combo for me.

Sounds awesome to me! Jared Polin tried this lens on his D3s and said it was very sharp and crispy there as well, but a tad blurry for indoor fast sports. Can't wait to get mine!

 

[chaosrealm93]

hmm... ok. enjoy?

 

[Derrel]

20110526-DSC_0161 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110526-DSC_0070 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110525-DSC_0222 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


DSC_0121 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yellow. All the greens are polluted with yellow. But then, your photos, 90 percent or more of those on Flickr at least, have "different" color palettes than most people work in. The majority of your photos have extreme toning, so it would not matter if the lens has a sickly warm color cast, since the majority of the time your pictures are edited into a very stylized color look. Which I think is actually quite nice. It seems to me that in your photography, you are not striving for "accurate" or "realistic" or "representational" color renderings, but rather something much more artistic and individualized. Which I think is nice.

 

[TordFuglstad]

20110526-DSC_0161 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110526-DSC_0070 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


20110525-DSC_0222 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


DSC_0121 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yellow. All the greens are polluted with yellow. But then, your photos, 90 percent or more of those on Flickr at least, have "different" color palettes than most people work in. The majority of your photos have extreme toning, so it would not matter if the lens has a sickly warm color cast, since the majority of the time your pictures are edited into a very stylized color look. Which I think is actually quite nice. It seems to me that in your photography, you are not striving for "accurate" or "realistic" or "representational" color renderings, but rather something much more artistic and individualized. Which I think is nice.

First and foremost thank you very much!
I can see what you are talking about on the yellowish part, but it's easily correctable in Lightroom.
The last picture was shot with the Nikkor 35mm f1.8G, so that would've been the auto WB in the D40.
But i can see your point with the yellowish greens.

 

[TordFuglstad]

hmm... ok. enjoy?

bet you are one of those trolls who were rioting in vancouver..

 

[chaosrealm93]

no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto

 

[TordFuglstad]

no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto

Cool! U should go to europe sometime, loads of awesome motives!

 

[Markw]

Okay, I honestly think Sigma is taking a hit too hard here. I have owned the Sigma 50, 105, and 180mm Macros, 10-20/4-5.6, and 18-50/2.8 DC D lenses. I do believe that all of them have been quite sharp indeed. The 18-50, at least my copy, beat out the Nikon 18-70. Sigma makes good lenses. Very good lenses indeed, if you get a good copy. I think that most of their upper-level lenses are very accpetable in most situations. I was going through the same dilema about a year and a half ago. I ended up buying a Nikon 80-200/2.8D ED-IF. I got mine used from ebay for $575, shipped. You'd be EXTREMELY lucky to find something like that today, but it is posisble. Anywho, the lens is a beast. Coming from the Nikkor 70-300G, it weighed a ton. It is built extremely well, takes beautifully sharp, crisp photos, and I expect it to last me until..well..however long I need it. It really is a tank of a lens. But, that's not without its downfalls, if you can call it that. The lens does give off quite a bit of torque in order to focus, and it isnt the quietest focusing lens in existance. If you snap a picture as soon as the lens starts to focus, its inevitabley (sp) going to be blurry for this reason. It can get quite intense. I would KILL for the AF-S version, or the HSM of the Sigma for this reason. But, like everyone else has said here, the 80-200s optics can't be beat by Sigma's 70-200 series. Even though this lens is old and Sigma's is new and flashy, this is a beautiful lens, and, in my opinion, is still superior based solely on optics. The 80-200/2.8 AF-S is the exact price of the 70-200/2.8 OS from Sigma.

Just a thought.
Mark

 

[chaosrealm93]

no, just an innocent hobbyist photographer sitting in toronto

Cool! U should go to europe sometime, loads of awesome motives!

i would love to. in fact, before you mentioned europe, i was planning on visiting there as well as egpyt and some other countries when i get the money ^^