Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II - something

[TordFuglstad]

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

I was thinking of the one without OS, so that's a bit cheaper than the 80-200 Nikon. but what you're saying is very true, maybe i should save the extra cash and buy something better. IMHO tho I still think the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a very very good lens.

 

[TordFuglstad]

Here is a comparison of the two in question, actually it's two reviews from the same site but u get the point.

Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO macro (Nikon) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED - Review / Lab Test Report - Analysis

EDIT: The Sigma lens in this review is the old HSM, so i would think the HSMII is an improvement over that one.

 

[ghache]

I also think you guys are probably too hard on it and never owned one..... i have one and i love it! Depending on what you shoot, the sigma HSM II is a fine lens for the price. AF is fast as ****. its solidly build, It has no "warmer" color cast or whatever, nothing that bothers me anyway.

However, before buying mine, i was looking at the 80-200 two ring and decided to get the sigma for the faster auto focus and i've rented the 70-200 VR II a few times and its true that its less sharp wide open at the long end but not enough to say that the photos taken with the sigma sucks and are not sharp. All depend on what you do with the pictures at the end. I try to shoot mine on the 90-150 shooting portrait because its probably the sweet spot but i wont be afraid to shoot it at 200mm wide open.


On my d7000, this was shot at 200mm F3.2 at 1/200 (pretty dangerous to shoot at 1/200 at 200mm on a crop body)
I think its pretty damn sharp AND i only paid 600$ but got a deal from a buddy.

 

[Markw]

The sigma is a great lens. Sigmas HSM is incredible, and that combined with the great optics, it makes the sigma Lenses a great buy. I don't want to discount it at all. But, the 80-200 is a little sharper if you pixel-peep hardcore. Whichever you get, you won't miss the other (maybe besides the HSM if you buy the Nikon.)

Mark

 

[TordFuglstad]

The sigma is a great lens. Sigmas HSM is incredible, and that combined with the great optics, it makes the sigma Lenses a great buy. I don't want to discount it at all. But, the 80-200 is a little sharper if you pixel-peep hardcore. Whichever you get, you won't miss the other (maybe besides the HSM if you buy the Nikon.)

Mark

I'm sure the 80-200 is a tad sharper than the Sigma.
Here's the pros and cons for the Sigma as I see it.

Pros:
Almost as sharp as the nikon Lenses
Cheap
Completely new, warranty (and in Norway we have something called reklamation, which means that if a product stops working like it should before 5 years after you bought it you'll get a new product or your product will be fixed)
HSM II motor, which means very fast focus
Good build quality, just 100g lighter than the 70-200VR Nikon.

Cons:
Other lenses are a bit sharper
Probably not the best build quality on the market, even though it's damn good.

 

[pdq5oh]

I'll say this about the Nikon 80-200 I had. Ancient push pull and sharp to a fault, ha. AF was way too slow. Optically, I think that old lens was sharper than the Sigma. At all focal lengths and apertures. My 70-200 VR is everything that old lens was with way faster AF & VR. I've been thru the whole gamete of comparing lenses and found one thing. If best image quality is what you're after, maker lenses are the way to go.