Nikon 70-300 vs Sigma (or tamron) 70-200 f2.8 vs used nikon 80-200 f2.8

[laurence_nyein]

<p>Hi, I am thinking to buy a tele lens for portriate and other tele works. My favourite lens is nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2. However, the price is a problem so alternatively, I am thinking to buy Sigma(or tamerom) 70-200 f2.8 or nikon 70-300 lens. I know we can't make direct comparison to that two lens but as in term of price, this is the amount i wanna spend for a new tele lens. One more option is a used 80-200 f2.8 nikon. I been to Jacob shop and one of the staff told me that lens is old and not optimized for full frame so i might suffer from distortion and vegnetting at the cornor on my d700. is that true? and i also read about sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens has problems with autofocusing on a forum. is there anyone using the sigma lens got any problem with auto focusing?</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"80-200 f2.8 nikon. I been to Jacob shop and one of the staff told me that lens is old and not optimized for full frame so i might suffer from distortion and vegnetting at the cornor on my d700. is that true?" </em>- true in the part that the lens is an old lens.</p>

<p>The lens was optimized for film size cameras (24 x 36 mm), and as far as vignetting, corner distortion, this is all vendor's opinion - perhaps the vendor wants you to spend much more...or does not have that lens?.</p>

<p>The 80-200 was optimized for film size cameras, and the FX is about the same sensor size, so it should work well on FX and DX, and film.</p>

<p>What camera do you have ? Do you shoot sports? where AF-S could help you ? DO you shoot in dark? where VR could help you? Perhaps (any) 2.8 lens would be better than the 300/5.6, 2.8 allows 4 times more light gathering than the 5.6. </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I would say that you should find another vendor. I have the 80-200 and it works just fine on film as well as my Kodak 14 NX a full frame digital.<br>

Yes the lens is old it was originally designed back in the days when all cameras where full frame (film)<br>

All of the 70-200/80-200 have a little vignetting at the long end. Its the nature of the beast.<br>

Most people never notice it</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A 70-300mm type lens is typically a f4 or f4.5 to f5.6. That is very different from a constant f2.8 70 or 80-200mm zoom.</p>

<p>You need to first determine whether you want 300mm or you want constant f2.8. Only you yourself can make that decision. Both types of lenses exist because there are needs for both. After you decide the type, we can further discuss different options within the type.</p>

[craigd]

<p>It makes no sense to say that an old lens is "not optimized for full frame." As Frank notes, full frame (FX) sensors are the same size as a frame of 35mm film. If a lens was designed for 35mm film, then it effectively was designed for full frame.</p>

<p>There are four different Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses. You don't say which one you're considering. The oldest one is an AI-s manual focus lens that probably isn't what you want. Then there is an AF version and an AF-D version, both of which use the old camera-based screw motor to drive autofocus. (Fortunately, your D700 has the screw motor, so it is fully compatible with these lenses.) The newest version is AF-S and has its own built-in silent AF motor. It focuses much more quickly than the older versions. All of these lenses are great optically, but they don't have VR, which may or may not be a deal-breaker for you. Then again, I don't know if the competing Sigma or Tamron models have VR.</p>

<p>The 80-200mm AF-S is probably the best choice optically, if you can't afford the newer Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 models with VR. I just did a quick search in Google Shopping, and it looks like the 80-200mm AF-S currently costs about half the price of the latest 70-200mm VR II, and the older AF and AF-D 80-200mm models don't cost much less, so paying a little extra for AF-S is probably worthwhile. The AI-s version is signficantly cheaper, but it's manual-focus only.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>None of the 80-200 Nikons that have been mentioned above vignette on a full-frame body. Their design pre-dates digital and as such they were optimized to work with a 24X36 frame (ever so slightly large than a Nikon FX) and are all flawless performers.</p>

[laurence_nyein]

<p>thanks guys .. i was told wrong about 80-200 not optimized for FF. of course, all film are 35mm FF. :P really appriciate for your comments.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>A couple of generalizations. The f2.8 lenses will allow you to shoot at wider apertures than the 70-300s. The more subject motion, the more important this could be. A 70-300 VR Nikon will not gain much, if anything from stabilization when you need fast shutter speeds to stop motion. The 70-300s may not be as good optically as the -200s, this can vary a lot with the lenses considered. The 70-300s do go to 300 but may need to be stopped down to get maximum optical results so that may "slow" them down even more. OTOH, the -200s don't go to 300 at all. The 70-300s are likely to be smaller and/or lighter so carrying them may be less burdensome.</p>

<p>The 70/80-200/2.8s are typically aimed at the photographer needing specific types of higher performance and the prices typically reflect that, some being a lot more expensive than the 70-300s. The 70-300s can be a very acceptable general purpose lens.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>A good compromise would be using a 80-200 with a 1.4 or 1.7 converter A 1.7 will give you 340mm reach and F4.8 on a 80-200. I've used this successfully on a 70-200 VR for several years. It gives the advantage of F2.8 when the light is less good with minimal extra wight.</p>