Lenses

[pasha_belman]

<p>What is the best Third Party Lense for NIkon D700 - Looking for 70-200mm f2.8? Compare to Nikon Lense.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

<p>Sigma makes some great lenses. I don't have that one, but I have a couple of others that I use with my Nikon D80. They have a 70-200 2.8 at B&H for about $799. Has a ton of great reviews.</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II. Make sure you get the HSM II. Optically, it is better than my old 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor, and I don't know compared to the current 70-200 Nikkor since I am unable to afford one. I will say, if you don't need VR, the Sigma is the way to go.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>I have to take a bit of exception with the above. The 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor is a legendary lense. It is sharp as a tack, beautiful color and built like a tank. It is not optically inferrior to the Sigma. Not by a long shot. A brand new one with a five year Nikon warranty is about $1050.00. I have a 70-200 AFS VR but I keep the 80-200 as a backup and find myself using it frequently.</p>

<p>I have used the Sigma and the copy I used was not as sharp as the Nikon. Noticeably not as sharp. A plus for the Sigma is the HSM which is nice. Read the reviews. The additional couple of hundred dollars for the Nikon is money well spent. </p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I had the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM DG version I not version II - I only sold it as I was given a 70-200mm VR Nikkor as a gift..........</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM DG does not vignette on the D700 even at 200mm, is equal to the Nikkor VR lens for focus speed on the D700 and is just as quiet in operation. The Sigma is sharp, contrasty but renders colours slightly differently to the Nikkor, this is not a fault or a flaw, just a slight difference (warmer colours from the Sigma) I'd recommend it to anyone who doesn't want to pay for the Nikkor 70-200mm VR. The Nikkor 70-200mm lens offers me much more pleasing bokeh than the Sigma did but this is a purely subjective observation on my part.</p>

<p>I also had the Nikkor AF 80-200mm D lens - it's everything <strong>Lee Richards</strong> says it is but slower to focus than the Sigma (D300 body) but I found it equal to the Sigma for sharpness through all of it's zoom range.</p>

<p>Many will say that third party lenses like Sigma can throw poor copies of a lens onto the shelves far more often than Nikon does. I've owned only two Sigma lenses from new- both were sharp and performed well.</p>

[pasha_belman]

<p>thank you guys... I will take a look again at both of those lenses.<br>

[{Great stuff...</p>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted per photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines"><b>Community Guidelines</b></A> </i><br>

[pasha_belman]

<p>:)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I agree with Lee. I compared the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM (version I) versus the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8; I was mostly afraid the AF of the Nikon was slow as some websites claimed. Turned out the AF speed difference was minimal (on a D80, on my D300 AF-D lenses are clearly faster even) *, but more disappointing was the wide open performance of the Sigma. Very fuzzy and low contrast, while the Nikon was fine wide open. Given the price difference (€0), it was an easy choice.<br>

In addition, Sigmas zoom the other way around from Nikon lenses. Small thing, but it would annoy me.</p>

<p>If AF speed is none of your concerns, a lot of tests give a very positive nod to the image quality and sharpness of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, but apparently it has the slowest AF of all. Never used it myself, but depending on your uses it may be worth checking out.</p>

<p>* <em>The main difference, as far as I could tell it, in AF was: Nikon faster to acquire focus and lock on, very firm in that, no hunting. Sigma slower to acquire focus, a tad more hunting, but once in focus faster to track and keep focus.</em></p>

[szrimaging]

<p>The HSM II is noticeably sharper than the HSM I. But, I said optically better, not sharper. Optically better includes bokeh and color cast. Sharper, I would say that when the Sigma is in perfect focus and the Nikkor 80-200 (the first D type with push/pull) is in perfect focus, the edge goes to the Sigma, but only slightly. Not enough to rule out either lens. Bokeh wise, they again are very similar, and it would be a matter of prefrence. Certain shots I like the Sigma, others the Nikkor. Where I think the Sigma stands out is color/contrast rendition. Maybe the newer AF-S Nikkor 80-200 is better than the older lens, but I hands down say the Sigma looks better than the old push/pull D Nikkor.</p>

<p>Of course, you wouldn't be unhappy with either lens, unless you need fast focusing.</p>

[fernando_scherer]

<p>not sure what you want to shoot but</p>

<p>i had the 80-200 af-d version, 2 rings. bought brand new. its quality is something that makes you smile every time you use it.. colors, contrast and bokeh.. but its af is very slow, cant cope with sports. if you subject is more steady you'll love it.. very good against strong lights, no flare. didnt test 3rd brands though</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>You already got a lot of views in your previous post. It may help us to know what you want to use it for.</p>

[pasha_belman]

<p>Weddings... I do need a fast lense. Low Light - churches where I cant use a flash, I would like to be able to use a lense that could focus fast. </p>