Nikon 80-200 f2.8 vs. Sigma 50-150 f2.8

[colin_mangan]

<p>Title says it all really! How do these two lenses stack up against each other when it comes to image quality. I'm looking to buy and need some help making a decision. Some sample pics would be great! Oh, and this would be used for mostly wedding photography!</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>It's apples and oranges really. The reason to buy the 50-150 is weight and focal length, not to get the absolute best image quality.<br /> <br /> The 80-200 doesn't go to 50mm, is twice the weight and uses old focusing technology. The 50-150 doesn't go to 200mm, only covers DX and is a slightly less capable performer.<br /> <br /> They tested both at photozone.de so you can compare resolution and other stuff there (they are similar but the 80-200 has a slight edge on almost everything, as it should).</p>

<p> </p>

[richard_wood5]

<p>Wow, really? No contest. The Nikon, optically, hands-down. For wedding photography, it's going to make this awful '80s vintage-motor sound the entire time - make sure the folks are okay with that. You might also consider a lightly used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S:</p>

<p>http://sinarbahagia.com/images/AFS_80-200_2.8D</p>

<p>Interestingly, this forum is blocking all links and mention of a guy with a name that rhymes with "Sven Smockmell", for being a fibber..... while I agree, his illustrated page would have helped greatly with this. Anyway, google "Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S" if it interests you, at all. I'd recommend looking for it at KEH, if it ends up being the lens for you. </p>

<p>I wish I had gone this route. Quiet, slightly faster on the focus, same optics as the AF-D. I can't figure out why Nikon didn't just keep this in their line, anyway. It's a good mid-point between the AF-D and the current AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The Nikkor is a considerably better lens. It is sharper wide open, especially at the long end. It has truer color rendition and better contrast. Both are mechanically solid, although I would rate the Nikkor a bit more solid. The Sigma does have and HSM motor, wich is a plus for it. If the focal length range and size/weight aren't driving you, definitely get the Nikkor. Yes, I have owned and shot both of them.</p>

[alan_wilder1]

<p>The 80-200/2.8 AF-S optics differ considerably from the AF-D version. Image quality varies little between them but focusing is faster and quietier with the AF-S. Moreover, I can use any Nikon AF-S or AF-I tele-converter and maintain full function and fast accurate autofocus. The AF-D version is limited to the older Nikon MF extenders or 3rd party autofocus extenders. This to me is the main advantage of the AF-S version of this lens and why I'll never sell it. Unlike the VR version, it also maintains an aperture ring I can use with my F2AS.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the nikon will be better in the corners. it's also much bulkier and has slower AF. its FL doesnt cover the entire portrait focal range on DX, but its got a lot more reach.</p>

<p>i have some 50-150 samples in the other recent thread on this topic.</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>uh... how about weight, portability, etc.. The 50-150 is probably the perfect wedding lens, it's small, light, and quiet.</p>

[bwcombs]

<p>Don't know what body you are going to be using this on. The Sigma is a DX lens, so a full frame DSLR will have some vignetting. The sizes of these lenses is a factor for weddings, I would think. The Nikkor is a bit cumbersome, and weighs in at 1300g. The Sigma is shorter, and only weighs 780g. I have the 80-200mm and absolutely love it, image-wise. But it is a brute to carry and shoot for events. I would think, as others have stated, that the size and convenience factor might be a decision maker, depending on what you are shooting.</p>

[colin_mangan]

<p>i'll be shooting it on a d300 and a d40x</p>

[cherubinphotography]

<p>If you use it on the D40X you will want the Sigma for autofocus. The newer Nikon is non-AFS. Although, as stated, you'll need to find a used version of the 80-200 AF-S. I saw one go on Ebay two weeks ago for about $1200 US.</p>

[lightsmith1]

<p>There are multiple Nikon 80-200mm models out but the ED IF version is very sharp and reasonably quick to autofocus - depends a great deal on the camera to which it is mounted. Slow AF on a D100 but great AF on a D2/D3 camera.<br>

I replaced mine with a 70-200 to get the VR for wedding photography. I have added the 50-150 as my reception and travel lens. It is a lot lighter and a lot less conspicuos than the 70-200 canon. I also like its going to 50mm as 70mm is a bit too long for indoor use at receptions while the 50mm is a great place for a second camera to start while using a 17-55mm on another DX camera or a 24-70mm on a FX companion camera.<br>

Image quality on the 50-150mm II version is as good as what I get from the 70-200mm lens and AF is actually a bit faster on a D300. Is the lens on par with the 80-200 that costs almost twice as much - not exactly but close enough considering the benefits of the lighter and smaller lens.</p>

[eric_zenteno]

<p>I currently own these two lenses, and perhaps I have received two bad Nikon copies and the Sigma is a wonderful one, but the Sigma seems to be sharper anything below 125mm even wide open. I just received the original HSM version some weeks ago, it is not that light (compared against my Nikon 55-300), however you still notice the difference against the 80-200.<br>

This hidden gem, has become a nice surprise, and I am thinking of keeping it for those situations where I want to go light. It is a keeper!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric Zenteno, all versions of the Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 AF lenses are well over 10 years old, and yes, I have once owned all optical formulas of those lenses at some point. (There are only two optical formulas: all AF/AF-D ones have the same optical formula and the AF-S has a separate formula.)</p>

<p>If you want to see an excellent Nikon lens in that range, try version 2 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. Just keep in mind that high quality comes with a price.</p>

[eric_zenteno]

<p>I agree with you <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=24372">Shun Cheung</a>, and I confirm, if I had to choose one between the Sigma 50-150 HSM I/II and the Nikon 80-200 2.8D, I would keep the Siggy. It is much SHARPER, lighter, and deliver more consistent results thru the range, even at 150mm is very good. Also, I did not notice a significant difference in focusing speed. What a shame Sigma discontinued that version to go ahead with the OS version, which is HEAVIER.<br>

As I said before, perhaps I just had bad luck and got two bad Nikon copies.</p>