Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF D ED or Sigma 70-200 / 2.8 HSM OS?

[mario_a__buenos_aires_]

<p>I can get both lenses at about the same price. Which one would you recommend considering only image quality and handling? (Any version of Nikkor 70-200 is out of my budget)<br>

Thanks in advence for your comments.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I tested the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS at the end of 2010. Overall it is quite a good lens with a solid construction and a smooth tripod collar. Optically it is not quite at the level of Nikon's version 2. The Sigma has an interesting two-stage lens hood where you can add an "extension" to make the hood longer for DX bodies.</p>

<p>What I don't like about are that the tripod collar is too easy to detech unintentionally; that can potential lead to some disaster on the tripod. Also you cannot use Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters; they will not mount on the Sigma lens, but they also will not mount on Nikon's 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-D. If you modify those TCs, they will mount on both lenses.</p>

<p>Given that the Sigma is an AF-S with VR type lens, I would pick that over an AF-D Nikon at equivalent prices.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i havent tried the sigma 70-200 or the nikkor 80-200. but i do have the sigma 50-150, which is a DX-only lens, and the nikkor 70-200 VR II, which i use on both FX and DX. when i showed up in photo pits with the 50-150, which was all i could afford at the time, no one sneered at me. i kept the lens even when i went to FX because it can go places the 70-200 can't.</p>

<p>the 50-150's HSM is just as fast as the 70-200's AF-S, but a bit more jittery in AF-C. in terms of image quality, they're surprisingly close. the nikkor is better optically, but not by enough to justify the price differential by itself. the nikon has better tonal rendition and color palette, perhaps, but i've gotten some pretty great shots with the sigma. i'd expect the 70-200 OS to be about the same.</p>

<p>of course, the nikkor has a better build, and the same would go for the 80-200, which is a solid brick with a well-deserved reputation for producing quality images.</p>

<p>your choice kind of depends what you plan on shooting, and whether OS will make a difference for you. also what body you're using. if you have a pro-spec camera like a d300 or d700, the lack of AF-S on the 80-200 is less of a big deal. i will say that VR on the 70-200 II is nice to have for when you need it.</p>

<p>since shun has actually used the sigma, i would give some weight to his opinion on the IQ over what some other posters who havent used the sigma (or its close relative) might say. it would be interesting to see a direct comparison between the sigma and the 80-200, which is supposed to not be as good as the 70-200 II.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I highly recommend a used Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S. </p>

[evilsivan]

<p>I reccomend a used 70-200 f2.8 Version 1</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I would say go for the new Sigma over a used lens any day. The 80-200 AFS was a great lens but it is getting old and parts may become hard to find. The 80-200 AF D is a good lens I have one and keep it for a back up. My main sports lens is a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 HSM and it is a kick butt lens.It has fast AF it is sharp and very good color and contrast. It is sharper at f/2.8 at all focal lengths then my 80-200.<br>

If Nikon made this lens I might have thought about buying the Nikon. But I know it would have cost more and may not have been any netter or even as good.</p>

 

[mario_a__buenos_aires_]

<p>Even I agree with Shun’s suggestion, my doubt arises because I had a bad experience with the only Sigma lens I have, a 28 mm f1.8 type AF D (not the latest version): it worked fine with my film bodies and when I switched to digital I considered it as my “perfect” normal lens for my D200. But soon I noticed that all the pictures taken with this lens were sistematically underxposed. I thought that was some problem with the metering system of the camera but when I upgraded to the D700 the issue remained.<br>

On the contrary, I have no complains on any of my Nikkors (in film and digital bodies) from the oldest one (105 f2.5) to the newest, a G type zoom.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I've bought and owned a couple Sigma 2.8 zooms [50-150 and 18-50(?)]. They never quite lived up to the hype. Go with Nikkors.</p>

[dennis_d._hardenburger]

<p>The Nikon 80-200AFD is an outstanding lens, I think you would be very happy with it. It is still being made today so parts wouldn't be a problem. The 80-200AFS focused faster and was a little sharper but is not being made any more and parts woud be hard to find.<br>

Good luck with your choice.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I you ALWAYS will use a tripod, the Nikon will work. If not, I would go for the Sigma. With OS, it is more versatile.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>dan, just curious, what was wrong with your 50-150? i've had two copies (one was stolen) and they were both sweet.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>When I was shopping for a 70-200 or an 80-200 f.2.8 auto focus lens, I ended up buying a used 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikon AFS for the following reasons:</p>

<p>1. At f/2.8, it had better resolution than the other versions of the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8.<br>

2. It had image quality equal to the 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikon.<br>

3. It was less expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikon.<br>

4. Unlike the 70-200mm Nikon and Sigma, it had an aperture ring that made it compatible with my older film cameras.<br>

5. Since I frequently use manual focus, I prefer the Nikon to the Sigma because the Sigma manually focuses in a direction that is opposite to all my other lenses.<br>

6. Even though the 70-200mm Sigma has an optical stabilization feature and the 80-200mm Nikon does not, I preferred the Nikon because this feature was not important to me.<br>

.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I only had the Sigma 70-200mm/f2.8 OS for less than a month, so I can't comment on its long-term durability, but as far as I can tell, its construction is very solid. However, it does not have the rubber ring around the mount to seal out moisture when mounted on a body. The Sigma lens is totally different from the $400 Tamron 70-300mm Di VC I also tested earlier. The Tamron is optically excellent but the construction is only margainally acceptable.</p>

<p>The Sigma works fine on my D700, D300, and D7000. Occasionally Sigma lenses have compatibility issues with new Nikon bodies, but that seems to be a much bigger issues with Canon users and will require a firmware upgrade on the lens to fix. I recall some cases when the D3 was introduced, people found that some Sigma FX lens would trigger the auto DX crop and some Sigma DX lenses wouldn't.</p>

<p>At least to me, having VR is important for the 70-200mm/f2.8, as I upgraded from the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S to 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1 for that feature alone. If you hand hold the 70-200 a lot indoors for wedding, party type photography, having VR (OS in Sigma terminology) is important. If you mainly shoot from a tripod or you mainly shoot sports with a high shutter speed anyway, you can probably live without VR.</p>

[mario_a__buenos_aires_]

<p>Thanks everybody for your comments. It’s a hard choice. Commonly I shoot a mix of indoors and sports (my son playing soccer), so OS /VR is attractive, but aperture ring and manually focusing in the direction I accustumed to are also important features. I have to ponder them all, but I think the Nikkor is taking some advantage in this race</p>