used Nikon 80-200 af-s vs sigma 70-200 hsm II

[Destin]

I have $900 to spend on a lens in the range. My initial plan was to buy the sigma from my local shop and be done with it. Many folks give it great reviews, about half seem to have trouble with it's focus calibration.

Reading reviews on the Nikon 80-200 af-s, it has overall better reviews but apparently there are alot of bad copies of it out there too, some with focus issues like the sigma

To get it used for $900, I'd have to buy on ebay. Not too big a fear for me, as I use ebay alot. The bigger problem I see is that if i end up with a bad copy of the nikon, I don't have a warranty to cover it.

I'll be using the lens mainly for sports, and some portraits if it makes any difference.

 

[Derrel]

You could always pass it along on eBay. I would much,much rather have the Nikon than the Sigma, for a number of reasons. Resale value, color balance, build quality, optical quality, performance, all being better with the Nikkor than the Sigma.

 

[ghache]

I am currently shopping for that lens and i think i am going for the sigma. i heard that the focus problem is really limited to a small amount and that the focus is really fast.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

I've been using the nikon 80-200 for a few years and it is a great lens for the price, but it's not without its problems. It focuses fairly slow. Not slow enough that you can't use it for high speed sports, but you will miss more shots than you would with a newer lens. It's very noisy. It's not a good lens to use in a quiet environment, especially when it's searching. And not the most important thing, but a little annoying, it doesn't have manual override on the focus. The m/a switch is fragile and can break pretty easily. The hood also doesn't secure very well. It regularly falls off if I'm walking with the camera hanging off my shoulder.

 

[Derrel]

Dan,
The OP is asking about the 80-200 AF-S...it does have full-time manual focus override...it has very fast focus...it has almost totally silent focusing...I think you have an 80-200 AF-D model...the OP's asking about the relatively much rarer 80-200 AF-S that was produced right before the 70-200 VR.

 

[Hooligan Dan]

I do have the AF-D. I completely read over that. My bad.

 

[djacobox372]

I own the 80-200 af-s and it's an amazing lens. If you can find one for $900, then I'd say grab it! They typically sell for around $1100.

It's rather odd that you would bring up good/bad copies of the lens. As that is what is usually pinned on the sigma brand.

 

[CNCO]

Spend a bit more and get the 70-200 f2.8

 

[DC-Photog]

Always go with the Nikon. I have a 15 year old 80-200 (non af-s) that I've passed along to my assistant. I cannot tell the difference between prints made with it and my newer Nikon 70-200.

 

[Destin]

Spend a bit more and get the 70-200 f2.8

I would love to, but I'm a starving college student. It would take me three months to save up the extra $700 I would need to get a used 70-200 VR. I need a new camera body soon too, so I need to budget accordingly.

 

[Sachphotography]

I would go with a brand New Sigma for 799 from a good dealer such as BH or Adorama.
Buying used can be good or bad. I have had both good and bad experiences. Though the bad lens I got was promptly refunded due to paypal's wonderful service...lol Anywho My point is that if you get a bad copy of a new lens from BH or AD you can easily get it taken care of. If you get a bad copy on Ebay you either suck it up and ship to Nikon or you lie and resell it on ebay for a loss. I would hope your integrity woul not lean towards the latter.My point is if your Money is tight go for the Guarantee. Another great option is to buy used from a reputable dealer such as KEH.... Adorama has a good selection of used as well as BH but KEH has the best customer service I have dealt with to date. Keh will gladly take back and refund for a bad lens. They tend to often under rate gear and 9 out of 10 times you will get a lens rated as an "OK" copy when it is in spectacular shape.

Check them out....

Nikon Autofocus 80-200 F2.8 D MACRO ED WITH TRIPOD MOUNT (77) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS ZOOM TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

Here is a great deal

Used Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM 566306 -

Only $529 with HSM/\/\/\/\/\/\

1986G Nikon 80-200 2.8 Ed Af-d W/bracket *77

These are just a variety of options. I would highly recommend Somewhere that will take a lens back if it is not to your liking. Ebay is not a good choice for that.

That Sigma is a steal at that price lol I would buy it but I just bought a 180 f/2.8 and a 105 f/ 2.8 darn......I could have got that lens for cheaper!!!!

 

[epp_b]

If you can stretch that budget a couple hundred dollars, go for a brand new 80-200 AF-D (not AF-S) far sooner than I would the Sigma.

 

[Sachphotography]

If you can stretch that budget a couple hundred dollars, go for a brand new 80-200 AF-D (not AF-S) far sooner than I would the Sigma.

Also depends on the Camera he has.... he may have to have AFS or HSM but yeah the Nikon would be a good choice.

 

[Destin]

If you can stretch that budget a couple hundred dollars, go for a brand new 80-200 AF-D (not AF-S) far sooner than I would the Sigma.

Also depends on the Camera he has.... he may have to have AFS or HSM but yeah the Nikon would be a good choice.

Correct, I'm using a d40 so I need the lens to have a built in motor. My next move after this is to get a d7000 though, hoping to have it by Christmas time...

 

[Ejazzle]

With out at doubt go for the Af-s. If you can find it hop on it. The af-d doesnt hold a candle to the AF-s.

The risk of one of those sigmas sucking is not worth it. The 80-200 af-s will be a better lens then any of those sigmas. I love my Af-s its a tank and you only ever read good things about them. That fucusing problem you read about was probably about the Af-d and someone over looked that Af-s part in the reviews section, just like dan just did.