80-200 2.8 af-d vs. 70-300VR

Still thinking about getting the 80-200 2.8 for sports shooting as an upgrade to my 70-300VR. Not quite sure if it is significantly better in daytime but I understand it is much better in less light (indoor/evening). Would this be a waste of money or should I just stay with the 70-300 VR? And, is the Sigma much less quality for a couple hundred less? Any input/experience would be great before I make a good move or wrong move. Thanks.

Hi Dean, I have a D80 and 80-200 2.8. I bought this combo for kids sports, primarily, High School football, and rec league basketball and little league. My lens spent a few weeks at Nikon this fall so I got to use a few other lenses while it was gone. They were 300mm 2.8, 70-200 2.8VR, 50-500mm "Bigma". My thoughts are, 200mm is good for little league football, but a little short for High Scool (you can't get up to the sidelines). Without 2.8, you are out of business for the High School games as they are "under the lights" and at F4, the shutter speeds are unacceptably slow. So, there is the rub. I think a zoom that went to 300 would be perfect "IF" it was 2.8, but of course, it's not. The trade off I make with a 200mm lens is gained with the bigger aperture.

The f/2.8 lens you are looking at would open up the evening games to you. I can't talk first hand about basketball, this will be my first season with it. It all depends on what sports you kids will play, and your disposable income. If your kids get to High School and they are in the marching band, your 70-300 will get some great shots, if they are playing football, it won't

Best of luck,
John

I chose the Sigma 70~200 against the 80~200 and I think I made the right choice. At that time the 70~200 VR did not exist!

The Sigma is one of the few lenses I have not felt the desire to upgrade, but I also bought the Nikon 70~300 for when I want VR. Having compared the two I much prefer the Sigma, but both lenses have their place. For your purposes I would recommend the Sigma 70~200 or the AF-S version of the Nikon 80~200, though if you can afford it I'd get the Nikon 70~200 VR (and a monopod, and a t.c.) and have the best of everything in one lens.

I've owned the 80-200mm 2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and lower price aside I like the Sigma better... I feel it does focus alittle faster (HSM) and is slightly sharper wide open. IMHO... I had the non macro, non- dg version of this lens and loved it... am waiting on another one on order from EBay... $520 brand new.

Thanks for the feedback on the Sigma. Wow, a great price on ebay. I haven't been able to find that deal. Let me know when and where there is another one and I may snatch one up.

jiocco said:

I've owned the 80-200mm 2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and lower
price aside I like the Sigma better... I feel it does focus alittle
faster (HSM) and is slightly sharper wide open. IMHO... I had the
non macro, non- dg version of this lens and loved it... am waiting on
another one on order from EBay... $520 brand new.

Click to expand...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_80200_28/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70200_28_nikon/index.htm

"The Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM APO DG macro is pretty impressive large aperture tele zoom lens. The resolution figures are on a very good to excellent level and neither distortions, vignetting nor CAs are really field relevant on an APS-C DSLR. The bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is pretty smooth and buttery - certainly an important aspect here. The mechanical quality of the lens is excellent and the HSM AF drive is both fast and near silent. As such it is a viable alternative to the Nikkor AF 80-200mm f/2.8 ED (or the Canon EF 70-200m f/2.8 USM L) although not necessarily a superior choice. "

Thanks for feedback everyone. My real question is/was whether the 80-200 2.8 is significantly better for sports than the 70-300VR and it sounds like it (or the Sigma 2.8) might be.

DeanL said:

Thanks for feedback everyone. My real question is/was whether the
80-200 2.8 is significantly better for sports than the 70-300VR and
it sounds like it (or the Sigma 2.8) might be.

Click to expand...

Have you thought about getting the 70-200 VR ?

If you have $500 invested in the 70-300 VR, and $850 in the 80-200, that's almost the price of the 70-200 VR...

The 70-200 VR beats both for sharpness wide open, and offers f/2.8 and VR in a single lens. If you need 300mm, add a TC. There you go - best of both worlds

Cheers

Mike

I can suggest most expensive fancy lenses in the world but I see no reason for that.

your 70-300 is great. in low light compare to 80-200 just go to one step higher ISO.

70-300 has a good bokeh and good optic. of course it doesn't give you the same DOF compare to 2.8 lens. if you have lot's of money go for 70-200 2.8 VR everybody knows that is great but don't expect a very big improvement compare to your 70-300

I would consider either 80-200mm 2.8 or sigma 70-200 2.8 much better for sports because being much brighter allows for a much faster shutter speed to stop the action. I took pics this weekend under cloudy skies of my younger brothers soccer game and shot at 2.8 1/800 iso 400 with stellar results. on the 70-300mm you'd probably be at f5? shooting 1/150th and not really stopping the action as nicely... i haven't used the 70-300 though and can't exactly confirm.

I know VR has no application for fast moving sports, as you need the faster shutter speed anyways. The sigma DG, non-DG, or Macro DG are all very very similar and closing for $500-$550 in used but very good condition all over on Ebay. just find a reputable seller with good info and images.

alireza said:

I can suggest most expensive fancy lenses in the world but I see no
reason for that.

Click to expand...

There is a reason, and the OP clearly states it: action photography needs fast aperture.

alireza said:

your 70-300 is great. in low light compare to 80-200 just go to one
step higher ISO.

Click to expand...

What if he's already at ISO 1600 ? Going from f/5.6 to f/2.8 lets you shoot at 4 times faster shutter speed. Another option is to go to ISO 800 and f/4 with twice the shutter speed. That's the difference between getting a decent shot or not.

alireza said:

70-300 has a good bokeh and good optic. of course it doesn't give you
the same DOF compare to 2.8 lens. if you have lot's of money go for
70-200 2.8 VR everybody knows that is great but don't expect a very
big improvement compare to your 70-300

Click to expand...

It's all relative. The 70-300 VR is nice and sharp, and very good for its price. The 70-200 VR is not a lot sharper, that's correct. But if you need f/2.8, there's no substitute. That's what you pay for - and the build quality

Cheers

Mike

Thanks Guys. This is all very insightful. You're right, the 70-300VR is quite sharp but under cloudy conditions and evening (after the sun sets........but,when the sun is just setting, I get some of the cleanest shots with the last sun in their faces), it is pretty hard to get a bright shot. I am leaning towards just getting a new 80-200 2.8 unless I can find a good used sigma 2.8 70-200 on ebay or somewhere reliable. Keep the comments coming please....you'll notice by my posts, I have been safely contemplating this buy for sometime now.

jiocco said:

I would consider either 80-200mm 2.8 or sigma 70-200 2.8 much better
for sports because being much brighter allows for a much faster
shutter speed to stop the action.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the Sigma has HSM so will focus quickly and silently. This is another adavntage over the 80~200 unless you get the AF-S version of that lens. I also find the combination of HSM and fast aperture make the Sigma focus much better than the 70~300 VR (quicker, less hunting).

I have both. the 70-200VR is a great lens. In very aspect: huge price, huge lens, huge weight, but most of all: great image quality. I bought the 70-300Vr as a somewhat lighter walkaround tele. It's smaller and lighter and it's rather cheap. The 70-300 amazed me. it's very sharp even wide open. Sure my 70-200 is sharp too, but @ 2.8 it's a bit soft. So i always stop down my 70-200 to get that sharp look. The 70-300 is sharp enough wide open. So it boils down that my 70-200 is collecting dust at the moment. 2.8 is nice, but it's 'only' a 1 stop advantage. i simply bump the iso by 1 stop to get the same shutterspeeds with F4 compared to F2.8. I'm just not sure if you will get enough bang for your buck if you get a 70 or 80-200 2.8. It's up to you, the bokeh on the 70-200 is superb tho...

and to be honest: if i have to get it really right, i grab the 70-200. Somehow it has a slight edge on any picture you shoot with a lens like that...

--
Raymond Francois

And I believe you have a slew of bulldog pictures that will handily demonstrate your point!

I, too, really like the 70-300 VR. No, it's not a pro lens, but it is an incredible amateur optic that scores very high marks in all categories.

My 80-200 AF finally ended up on the market after I found myself using the 70-300 so much more. If I were a low light sports shooter I'd have kept the faster glass but the newer Nikon is just so easy to carry around and that counts for a lot in my reality.

Take care, Raymond.
--
Holmes

http://holmes.zenfolio.com/