Sigma 70-200 f2.8 VS Nikon 80-200 f2.8

Ub3rdoRK · Nov 5, 2009

So im sure you guys get this a lot...but ive narrowed it down to a nice fast telephoto. I am now deciding to get either lens. I currently have a D90. I know i cant afford to get something with VR because well...its just really expensive. Any photo examples? Ive browsed flickr, amazon, forums etc and not a lot of good examples. Is it really worth saving $200 for a NEW lens where the nikon is about 1000 and the sigma is about $800. Optic differences, bokeh differences etc? My dad always says stay with the camera brand but i just need opinions.

My pros: lighter, cheaper
My cons: heavier, nikon branded, (reviews say more durable due to construction)
and thats about all i got

jeff5897 · Nov 5, 2009

Let's compare the 2 lens by these photos, use D300 camera, same ISO and same focal length, and review them in 100% original size.

I think Sigma is as good as Nikon.

200mm ISO200 Nikon 70-200 + D300
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

200mm ISO200 Sigma 70-200 + D300
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

70mm ISO200 Nikon 70-200 + D300
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

70mm ISO200 Sigma 70-200 + D300
Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.

MrLogic · Nov 5, 2009

Are you talking about the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, or the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S?

Ub3rdoRK · Nov 5, 2009

im sorry i should have clarified that...yes the f2.8D (two ring model)

itznfb · Nov 5, 2009

Nikon for sure.

Wolverinepwnes · Nov 5, 2009

This is like comparing a honda civic (good car, good built, last a long time) to a Rolls Royce (work of art, amazing built, expensive). the nikon being the Rolls of course!!!

dhilberg · Nov 5, 2009

The Nikon of course. By the numbers its optics performs better than the Sigma's, plus it will hold its resale value better. And after reading this thread here, I'd be hard pressed to even consider the Sigma.

Derrel · Nov 5, 2009

I looked at KEH.com and 80-200 two rings are from $819 to $889 in fine condition used. There have been several iterations of the Sigma. Did you happen to see the thread from two days ago where a user's Sigma 70-200 broke at the lens mount after around ninety days of ownership? For the additional money, the Nikkor will have significantly better build quality, as well as resale value.

If you buy the Nikon now and use it for a few years, the price will have crept back up little by little,and even with inflation,you'll be able to get what you payed for it back out of it. If you buy the Sigma, you'll have a major depreciation issue,and resale on Siggy's is usually 50 to 65 percent of price payed when the lens was new.

SlimPaul · Nov 5, 2009

Wolverinepwnes said:
This is like comparing a honda civic (good car, good built, last a long time) to a Rolls Royce (work of art, amazing built, expensive). the nikon being the Rolls of course!!!

Now I really like that comparison

Ub3rdoRK · Nov 5, 2009

i guess i should have browsed a little more. I have been really leaning to the Nikon which i knew i should stick with my instinct. I've always been weary on alternate brands.

dhilberg · Nov 5, 2009

Don't discount the third party brands entirely. There are third party lenses that are excellent: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM Macro, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, etc. I think there's an excellent third party macro too, but I don't remember it offhand.

However, with zoom telephotos (especially f/2.8 versions), the best performance is generally OEM.

benhasajeep · Nov 5, 2009

I have the 80-200 f/2.8 v2 and have had it for 10+ years. Thats 10 years of being haulled around in a bag. On and off tripods / monopods, mounted / dismounted. Not one single problem. I take good care of my equipment buy they definately don't get the white glove treatment every time I use them. It's built like a tank and has lasted like it was. In my opinion especially after seeing the broken Sigma it was a wise investment choice on my part!!

PatrickHMS · Nov 6, 2009

benhasajeep said:
I have the 80-200 f/2.8 v2 and have had it for 10+ years. Thats 10 years of being haulled around in a bag. On and off tripods / monopods, mounted / dismounted. Not one single problem. I take good care of my equipment buy they definately don't get the white glove treatment every time I use them. It's built like a tank and has lasted like it was. In my opinion especially after seeing the broken Sigma it was a wise investment choice on my part!!

What he said...

I have had both Sigma APO 2.8 and the Nikon 2.8

Both are good glass, and both will take good photographs.

But the difference in build quality between the Sigma and the Nikon is night and day, and all you have to do to see that difference is to hold one of each.

chip · Nov 6, 2009

I used to own a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and it produced great images. The down side is the lack of VR. For a telephoto zoom VR is really useful. Between the two I would pick the Nikon to be safe.

Antithesis · Nov 6, 2009

Wolverinepwnes said:
This is like comparing a honda civic (good car, good built, last a long time) to a Rolls Royce (work of art, amazing built, expensive). the nikon being the Rolls of course!!!

Except in this case, the Rolls is more reliable than the Honda.

Get the Nikon, no question. The Sigma is an ok lens, but always go with Nikon over third party if you can. There are very few exceptions to this.