Greg Gebhardt
Forum Pro
--I recently purchased the 80-200 2.8 and I love it! I shot this at
200, hand held.
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon 80-200 2.8 D vs 70-200 VR 2.8
- Thread starter Frank from AZ
- Start date
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
http://www.pbase.com/greggebhardt
Romantic warrior
Well-known member
I used both with film bodies, some times better Nikon, others Sigma....but now I have 70-200 Vr, so not my problem....anyway I still buy Nikon!
I dont know what most people want....people that I know still prefear Nikon, shops say that used Nikon have much value.... I have never had problem to sell my used Nikon equipment at good prices....
As pro I still prefear Nikon.... have u ever tryed to use Nikon assistence as pro? Fast, fast, fast..... Sigma? I dont know any pro with Sigma!
Are you a baby or a man? I respect your pov....i buy Nikon, you buy Sigma, it is simple! But you chat with a superior tone...is this respect?
Anyway let's stop this stupid conversation.... we have different pov.
Have nice time!
--
RW
N
Negative287
Guest
I compared the 70 - 200 Sigma against the lastest 80 - 200 ED D Macro Zoom from Nikon and the Nikon provided the better pictures... I can't speak for the older generations but the latest 80 - 200 is excellent and wasn't all that bad wide open either... Like I said before though I didn't like the weight of the 80 - 200 so I sold it.
As for the resale value, the Nikon's do have a higher resale value and typically a Sigma will lose 50% of it's value as soon as you try to sell it.
--
'The only real currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with each other when we're being uncool.' -- Cameron Crowe
As for the resale value, the Nikon's do have a higher resale value and typically a Sigma will lose 50% of it's value as soon as you try to sell it.
--
'The only real currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with each other when we're being uncool.' -- Cameron Crowe
Michael in Atlanta
Leading Member
I have both the old single ring version of the 80-200 and the 70-200VR. Here is a shot from the same location with each. The only post processing I did was a "Match Color" in CS as the VR shot was made in sunlight and the sun had gone behind some clouds by the time I switched lenses.
This one is from the old 80-200 at 200.
And this one is from the 70-200VR at 200.
Michael
This one is from the old 80-200 at 200.
And this one is from the 70-200VR at 200.
Michael
Chomper
Senior Member
Most Sigma lenses are pieces of cr*p Paolo. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've already had enough experience to know not to buy one. I don't know any professionals who really use them extensively. I worked at a newspaper for a little while and no one had a Sigma lens.
That should tell you something about their quality.
Just shoot! =)
That should tell you something about their quality.
--
Just shoot! =)
charlesh
Senior Member
having used the 80-200/2.8(still use) and the Sigma EX on an FM2n, F5, and D100, the Sigma is NOT sharper than the Nikon. When we are talking sharp, just how sharp is sharp? The 80-200, 70-200, Sigma, whatever, all give you sharp results. Fast focus...again how fast is fast? We are talking milliseconds with these pro lenses. When someone starts saying one is better, blah, blah, it really comes down to nit-picking. My opinion, of course.
charlesh
--
charlesh
charlie215405
Well-known member
Paolo,
For a guy with an Einstein sig, you seem to havge gone a little * too * simple in your reasoning!
You have a point- the Sigma's a good lens. For what it is- a Sigma. The images above f/5 or so out of it at its long end are good; wide open, Nikons show their heritage, and the Sigma shows why pros buy Nikon and not Sigma. That's not just my opinion- take a look at the boards over at Sportshooter, etc...
The fact is, BOTH the Nikon 80-200 and the 70-200vr are capable of significantly better overall images then the Sigma, in every respect, but particularly wide open at 200mm- which is exactly where most pros NEED the sharpness! It's enough of a compromise in sharpness to use a zoom instead of a prime in a telephoto lens; why compromise even more by dropping to Sigma quality?
Paolo, you may believe the Sigma gives YOU better, sharper results than the Nikon 80-200. Do what you do. Others (asw in almost every other pro Nikon and Canon photographer I've ever met, including Dirk Halstead, of Time magazine and his excellent site, http://digitaljournalist.org/ , use Nikon, including the legendary 80-200, for one reason: it was, until the 70-200vr came along, the best telephoto zoom around. Or at least they believe it. Go argue with them on a pro forum about Sigma's 'beating to a pulp' the 80-200 Nikkor. They'll hand you your ss, using facts and images to do it, and with a great big smile!
Glad you find your Sigma such a find, Paolo- but please don't ridicule others who find the actual FACTS suit them better than you!
For a guy with an Einstein sig, you seem to havge gone a little * too * simple in your reasoning!
You have a point- the Sigma's a good lens. For what it is- a Sigma. The images above f/5 or so out of it at its long end are good; wide open, Nikons show their heritage, and the Sigma shows why pros buy Nikon and not Sigma. That's not just my opinion- take a look at the boards over at Sportshooter, etc...
The fact is, BOTH the Nikon 80-200 and the 70-200vr are capable of significantly better overall images then the Sigma, in every respect, but particularly wide open at 200mm- which is exactly where most pros NEED the sharpness! It's enough of a compromise in sharpness to use a zoom instead of a prime in a telephoto lens; why compromise even more by dropping to Sigma quality?
Paolo, you may believe the Sigma gives YOU better, sharper results than the Nikon 80-200. Do what you do. Others (asw in almost every other pro Nikon and Canon photographer I've ever met, including Dirk Halstead, of Time magazine and his excellent site, http://digitaljournalist.org/ , use Nikon, including the legendary 80-200, for one reason: it was, until the 70-200vr came along, the best telephoto zoom around. Or at least they believe it. Go argue with them on a pro forum about Sigma's 'beating to a pulp' the 80-200 Nikkor. They'll hand you your ss, using facts and images to do it, and with a great big smile!
Glad you find your Sigma such a find, Paolo- but please don't ridicule others who find the actual FACTS suit them better than you!
charlesh
Senior Member
coming from one who has no brand loyalty, shooting Nikon, Olympus, Contax, & Leica, and dealing with one particular subject...where on earth does the Sigma 70-200 "beats it to a pulp"? Image quality? Speed? Build?Obsolete? What makes a camera or a lens obsolete? You tech-heads need to spend more time shooting and less time babbling nonsense on these forums.
charlesh
--
charlesh
charlesh
Senior Member
as I have also used the Sigma and Nikon. An old lens that starts to show its age...silly statement, as good image quality is good image quality, no matter how dated the technology. Speed? Milliseconds. Ghosting? No ghosting problems with mine, shooting 1000s of frames. Soft fully open? Baloney.
charlesh
--
charlesh
Nate Lam
Forum Enthusiast
hmm..seems like the house in the background of the first shot is more in focus than the house in the second shot.
This one is from the old 80-200 at 200.
And this one is from the 70-200VR at 200.
Michael
Mikhail Bogdanov
Veteran Member
Michael,
Thank you for the imgs. Any chance you could post something shot under identical (more or less of course) conditions using 80-200 and 70-200vr, preferably at long end wide open? I have 80-200/2.8 and trying to decide if 70-200 is that much better optically. Any information would be useful.
Regards
Thank you for the imgs. Any chance you could post something shot under identical (more or less of course) conditions using 80-200 and 70-200vr, preferably at long end wide open? I have 80-200/2.8 and trying to decide if 70-200 is that much better optically. Any information would be useful.
Regards
Benski
Forum Enthusiast
the real worth of this lens has to do with the vr.
something else, that should be mentioned is the outstanding
sharpeness achieved with the 70-200 vr + tc14e.
70-200 vr + tc14e @ f/5.6
http://www.hyattphoto.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=2235&lang=eng
--
. Ben
equipment list in .profile
something else, that should be mentioned is the outstanding
sharpeness achieved with the 70-200 vr + tc14e.
70-200 vr + tc14e @ f/5.6
http://www.hyattphoto.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=2235&lang=eng
--
. Ben
equipment list in .profile
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
First, the Sigma does NOT have the same sharpness of either Nikon lens wide open. Period.
Second, the 70-200 is ever so slightly sharper than the 80-200 (any of the last three versions).
Third, the VR works. Focus is extremely fast. Considerably faster than the Sigma or Nikon 80-200.
Is it worth 2x the money? To me it was. Sold my beloved 80-200. The 70-200 is rapidly becoming legendary. Try and buy a used one!!!!!
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Second, the 70-200 is ever so slightly sharper than the 80-200 (any of the last three versions).
Third, the VR works. Focus is extremely fast. Considerably faster than the Sigma or Nikon 80-200.
Is it worth 2x the money? To me it was. Sold my beloved 80-200. The 70-200 is rapidly becoming legendary. Try and buy a used one!!!!!
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Michael in Atlanta
Leading Member
Mikhail,
Actually both of those images were taken at 200mm F2.8 within 5 minutes of each other. Unfortunately I have already sold the 80-200 so further tests are not possible.
Michael
Actually both of those images were taken at 200mm F2.8 within 5 minutes of each other. Unfortunately I have already sold the 80-200 so further tests are not possible.
Michael
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum