Which lens of the three? 70-200mm Lens

<p>I am about to buy a zoom lens for my NIKON DF and D800 bodies in the 70-200 mm range. Should I go for the NIKON 80-200 F/2.8 ED, the NIKON 70-200 F/2.8 ED VRII or the SIGMA 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM? I uses them mostly for Landscape and also Wildlife. I know the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII is considerable more expensive than the other two, but also heard that the Sigma is superior to the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII in sharpnes. But also heard that the NIKON 80-200 F/2.8 ED could be very interesting, although it lacks VR, but with a tripod no problems or more ISO for wildlife. Thanks for your experience. Daniel Bruhin W.</p>

<p>If money is no objection, for me it would be the Nikkor 70-200 VRII no doubt. If that lens stretches the budget a bit too far... my choice was the Nikon AF-D 80-200 f/2.8; tested against the Sigma version that was available back then, it performed better at wide apertures. The current Sigma, however, should be quite improved. So, i would test in a store which one impresses you most, they're pretty close.<br>

The 70-200 f/4VR could also be a very interesting option, if it's mainly for tripod work. A lot less strain on the muscles carrying it around...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I uses them mostly for Landscape and also Wildlife.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few years ago, I tested the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS (with optical stabilization) for photo.net. While it is a fine lens also, I don't think it is better than Nikon's 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, which I already owned at that time (late 2010). But that was before the era of 36MP DSLRs, so my review was based on the D700 and D7000 bodies: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/70-200/review/</p>

<p>For landscape, do you really need f2.8? If not, I think Nikon's 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is the better lens to own. Optically it is in the same league as the f2.8 version, but it is much smaller and cheaper: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review<br>

I am very familiar with all three of Nikon's 70-200mm VR lenses. I would get an f2.8 only if you need to use it indoors or at night.</p>

<p>200mm is generally way too short for wildlife photography, though.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 70-200mm f/4. Used all the Nikons 80-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 since the early 90's. Switched to the "slower" but lighter version a year ago, I have absolutely no regret. It also works great with converters even the TC-20eIII.</p>

<p>I have not thought about the 70-200 F/4 , and it is not a bad idea. Started to study the lens and to read the reviews. I do night photography, but I have other lenses for that such as the Samyang, and AIS manual lenses in the range between F/1.2 to F/2.8. Even for wildlife, the 70-200 F/4 might be better than its counterpart of F/2.8 especially for its weight and decent bokeh. Thanks so far for your comments.</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII is definitely the best of the three. No question about it, optically and build quality. I've also used the VRI and the 80-200 and definitely prefer the VRII. I shoot figure skating from time to time and the VRII has the fastest AF of the three, which is crucial for something moving fast in low light, which could include wildlife on cloudy winter days or during golden hour.<br /><br />Haven't used the Sigma.<br /><br />I know lots of people love the 70-200 f/4 but I can't see going to a slower lens when the faster one is available. It might suit some people's purposes but I do enough indoors and in low light that I need the aperture both for exposure and AF speed.</p>

<p>Another option would be the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC USD. Most lens tests I have seen rate it better than the Sigma. I was impressed with it when I tested it on my film camera - a F100.</p>

<p>I second what Craig is saying. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII is head and shoulders above the others in terms of auto-focus speed, so if you are wanting to shoot rapidly moving objects, I'd go with that lens.</p>

<p>That being said, I've used the 80-200 AF-D 2.8 extensively, and when the subject is standing still, the 80-200 can pretty much equal the 70-200. And it'd less than half the price. But again, the auto-focus is not nearly as fast.</p>

<p>I agree with others in regards to the 70-200mm f/2.8 version. The latest one (VRII)is definitely the one to get if you go that route. It has sharper corners on FX bodies and, most of all, it is the best of the lot with teleconverters.</p>

<p>+1 to Brooks suggestion. The Tamron SP 70-200 VC lens has great optical quality - and I've used it on a D800. For distance work I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. For close work unfortunately the "breathing" of focal length would make it less suitable. But then both the current Nikon and Sigma 70-200 lenses shrink in focal length quite drastically when focused in as well.</p>

<p>I would add the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S ED to your search as well. I used the AF-S and the D ED one touch and eventually went to another brand 70-200/4 for a lighter weight solution. The xx-200/2.8 lenses do get very heavy through a day of shooting, so I definitely recommend checking out the Nikon f4 version.</p>

<p>I have the 80-200 AFS and the 80-200 AF-D two ring as well as the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM . The AF-D is a fine lens until the AF-M switch breaks and then it is a pain in the .... The 80-200 AFS is a great lens until the AF motor dies and then it is a very nice manual focus 80-200 because Nikon no longer has the parts for the motor. I bought the Sigma after the 80-200 AFS stopped auto focusing. I have access to the Nikon 70-200 VR II and have shot the Sigma against it in side by side testing. <br>

Wide open the Sigma is 90% of the Nikon. By f/4 there is no difference in sharpness or color. Shooting moving subjects the Nikon has nothing on the Sigma for focus speed. There is no way I could justify the price of the Nikon 70-200 over the Sigma.</p>

<p>And again the focus breathing comes up. ....All zoom lenses breath. For that mater any lens with a focus helical will breath. Focal length is measured at infinity and even then is kind of a best guess rather then 100% accurate</p>

 

<p>i have shot the 80-200 2.8d, 70-200 2.8 vr and vr2 on d3,d3x<br /> iwould go for nikon without doubt.<br /> the vr2 was not mine but i will upgrade to it in may.<br /> <br />it works for wildlife too..not everything though.<br /> but for you fieldhamster on big cities cementary it does work.<br /> also for other animals that do not bother humans too much.</p>

<p>you said that you are a landscape photographer. thats a good thing because<br /> the nikon 70-200, when focus to minimal distance @70mm it has a fov of a 135 mm lens.<br /> you should be certain, that this will not be a problem.<br /> any zoom lens does it, with the 70-200vr2 it is quite profound.<br /> for that kind of work i would recomment the 85 1.8 anyway and dont bother that issue.</p>

<p>go to a shop, test the sigma and the nikon.</p>

<p>if youa re really considering buying used, forget the 80-200, get atleast the 70-200 vr1 (sharper, higher resolution and vr...and yeah i shot with both on a d3x, the difference is noticable)</p>

<p>I've heard stories about the irrepairability of the 80-200 AF-S. It's also almost unavailable in the UK, and the only one I've ever seen was clearly unwell, so I can't vouch for it.<br />

<br />

I owned a couple of 80-200 AF-Ds. The mk1 was clearly unhappy in some way. The mk3 was fine, but has severe telecentricity variation at short range - in other words, it won't focus accurately. Even if you do, it's not very sharp at short range. At long range, it's not bad. The 70-200 VR2 is in a different league, assuming my AF-D was representative. I bought the AF-D for use with a D700 when I got married (for a friend to use), and it was clearly a bit softer than a 70-200 AF-S even at that point. When I got a D800, it didn't take me long to give up and do a trade-in. The 70-200 isn't perfect - the 200 f/2 is clearly better at large apertures - but it's pretty good. I've heard good things about the Tamron, too.<br />

<br />

If you're doing wildlife, a 70-200 seems short to me, even on DX. If you <i>are</i> on DX, and you're on a budget, consider the older 70-200 f/2.8 VR mk 1 - the main difference in the newer version is that the mk1's corners are soft at full frame at 200mm (and apparently it behaves a bit better with a teleconverter); I'm happy to recommend the 70-200 (by reputation - I only have the mk2 because I shoot full frame) to DX shooters. I'd look at the longer lenses like the new 80-400mm Nikkor or - at some cost of size - the 150-600mm Sigma. If you need speed, the 120-300mm f/2.8 Sigma isn't as much more expensive than the 70-200 VR as you'd think. If you need portability (although you did mention a tripod...) then the 70-200 f/4 is, by all accounts, optically very good, so long as you don't need f/2.8.<br />

<br />

Depending on your wildlife, I'd also not rule out the 300 f/4 (even the old one), which gets you surprisingly close even to small wildlife, and the 150mm f/2.8 Sigma, which will obviously get you even closer (if you zoom with your feet). For bigger wildlife, my recommendation goes back to the longer glass.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope that helps.</p>

<p>having owned the 70-200 VRII since 2010, i will say this: nice lens... but overrated and overpriced. the focus breathing unfortunately is an issue in many real-world situations, especially if you shoot people. also, for landscape, you dont really need it. i would get the 70-200/4 and save some cash. btw, i recently pulled out the 70-300 VC tamron, which had not seen use in about a year, and was surprised at the crispness and acuity, even at 300mm, stopped down one or two clicks. if you dont need constant aperture or lightning-fast AF, that lens is a sleeper, and excellent for landscape. the VC really works too, though it takes a second to lock-on. but hey, if you want to overspend, it's your money. </p>

<p>I finally decided for the 70-200 F/4. Very good critiques about that lens. In my case, this lens is mostly thought for landscape, to specified places to photograph in Torres del Paine where wildlife is scarce (up the mountains). But you never know some fox or similar which are sometimes very close, the 70-200 F/4 will help high up there. I will also save on weight, as my expeditions last some 5 weeks, priority is food. For real wildlife, further down on the valleys, I have the 120-400 Sigma, which I use with the Nikon 7000 (and very soon with the Nikon 7200). With the money saved, I think I will bjuy the 24 mm F1.4 of Sigma for landscape and night shots of milky way maybe with the Torres del Paine close by. Thanks for all your sugestions. Daniel B.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the money saved, I think I will bjuy the 24 mm F1.4 of Sigma for landscape and night shots of milky way maybe with the Torres del Paine close by.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sounds like an excellent plan. let us know how that 24/1.4 is!</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art, not the 24mm. Those Sigma Art lenses are very heavy. I would imagine that the 24mm is also excellent for low-light work. For landscape, I prefer something slower and lighter, just like the f4 version of the 70-200mm AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Daniel: Just checking that you know that the visibility of stars is determined by the absolute aperture, not the relative aperture, because stars don't magnify as you zoom in on them (except a <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse">lot</a></i>). That is, a 24mm f/1.4 will only be as good as a 50mm f/2.8 at making stars show up. If you're after the diffuse glow of the milky way or other deep sky objects, a wide angle is a great tool - I've used a 14-24 for this - but if you had specific stars in mind, I wanted you to be warned! Good luck.</p>

<p>BTW, just to make sure that this won't be a surprise to Daniel, the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is made in Thailand. Accidentally, I dropped my test sample from Nikon a couple of years ago. As a result, there were some scratched on the front barrel, but even so, that lens continued to work perfectly with great VR at 1/20 sec.</p>

<p>I have since bought my own f4.</p>

<p><br />Please keep in mind that ...</p>

<p>1. The newer 70-200mm lenses do not have an aperture ring and therefore do not work well on older Nikon film cameras that need an aperture ring for exposure control.</p>

<p>2. The older Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D lens has an aperture ring that allows it to work on older Nikon film cameras.</p>

<p> </div>