Sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Nikon 80-200 2.8 or other zoom

[s_nathan]

Hi guys & gals,

 

I need to buy a fast zoom lens around the $1k mark mainly for fast action sports like tennis. Anyone own

either one of these lenses? I like the $8XX price of the Sigma, but am concerned about reliability. Sigma

doesn't exactly have a bullet proof reputation. The Nikon is also attractively priced but I am concerned

that the auto focusing speed will be too slow for sports. Any opinions or other recommendations? Yes, I

would love to own the 70-200 2.8 VR, but is just too expensive, even used.

 

Thanks in advance

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

Sigma is faster af wise both are great optically, you shouldn't worry regarding the quality of the sigma ex lens it's great I have both and the sigma is quicker focus, also look at the 100-300f4 sigma it's a better length for tennis and much better than sung a convertor.

[daviddbfotoart]

I have the nikon for portraits, but would never use it for sport, then I'd never use the Sigma for portraits, so i'd suggest something else. Surely you'd only really need the fastest glass for low light sport.

[toddcwilson]

I own the Sigma 70-200 and personally I like it a lot. I like it for it's minimum focusing distance over the Nikon (3.3 ft vs. 4.9 ft - important for how I shoot), which was my deciding factor.

[james_c._turner]

i have the sigma for about 4 years, heavy use, with no problems.

[erik_loza]

You could get a clean, used 80-200mm AF-S for $800. I can't imagine a third-party 80-200mm being more rugged or reliable that the Nikkor. I've beaten the piss out of mine for six years and it's never failed to deliver the goods. Best of luck in your search.

[walterh]

The latest Nikkor AFS version (excellent ++) beats the Sigma lens (good-excellent) in all respects, including price as you noticed. Optically the older AF versions are not better than the Sigma. Both makes have slight advantages at either zoom end. The Sigma should have the latest firmware installed for proper AF (update was at no cost here in Germany by Sigma, maybe as well where you live).

 

If you do not piss on your lens (sorry Erik you called for it ^^) the Sigma will handle normal use and wear without problem - but slightly less robust than the Nikkor.

[tim_knight]

Below is a site of a professional in our small town who shoots all of the athletic and other school events. He uses the Sigma 70-200 for all of his athletic shots. I haven't seen what lens he used for the other school events but guess most of them were also shot with the sigma 70-200. You can look at the pictures and draw your own conclusion on the quality. I don't believe I have ever seen him use a flash. http://mit.midco.net/prairiestorm/MHSVB06C/

[juanjo_viagran]

I have a Tokina 80-200mm 2.8 ATX-pro AF and HIGHLY recommended.

is SHARP wide open and the AF on my D2H is pretty fast, built quality is AWESOME.

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-05.html

[todd peach seattle, washi]

Autofocusing speed is somewhat dependent on the camera. When you ask for opinions in this type of thread, you should probably disclose your camera, and ask for opinions with that camera (maybe even asking which sensor is used).

 

For example, I speak pretty highly of the last non-AFS Nikon 80-200/2.8 AFD (the one with the tripod collar) in terms of focus speed when used with bodies that have good AF sensors and high torque; like the F100, F5, D2H, etc. Experience with the same lens and a D100 might be quite different.

 

My AFD lens was stolen, and I replaced it with the AFS/VR version. I would still recommend the older lens to those folks craving focus speed if they have the body to drive it *fast* and they're trying to save money. I might even pick up one used (cheap) for a backup, as I still am a little suspicious of these AFS/VR beasts in terms of failure modes (Did I mention that I'm a dinosaur?)

[angkordave]

I tried both the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Nikon 70-200VR. I was impressed by the Sigma as there was very little difference between the 2 even wide open.

I'd have no reservations about the sigma; unless you need image stabilization and or a tele converter; which was the main reason I went for the Nikon.