Nikon 80-200mm VS Nikon 70-200mmVR VS Sigma 70-200mm

Messiah Khan

Messiah Khan

Santa is your dad
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,666
Name
Alasdair Fowler
Edit My Images
Yes
Which one to go for? :thinking: I have been saving for the 70-200mm VR, however as im planning on moving soon I really could do with keeping my money for that. but I keep coming across situations where the 70/80-200 range would be oh so usefull. Should I just get a 80-200mm and save lots of pennies? Whats focusing speed like on a D300+80-200mm compared to the 70-200mm VR? Do people who have the 80-200mm for things like sport and street photogaphy often feel like that lack that 70-80mm range? And what about the 70-200mm Sigma? All of my other lenses are Sigma, so does this one stand up to the alternatives. and last but not least, if I should go for the 80-200mm has anyone got one for sale? :)
 
Like above can't really be of any specific help, but I'd go for the Sigma or the 80-200 and save your money for other things. If you've not had VR before on you other glass you won't miss it and somethings in life are more important than shiny new photography toys!
 
The internet is littered with reviews i had gone for the nikon 80-200 but then got offered a good price on the sigma and went for that. Apparently there isn't too much between the Sigma and Nikon. Remember if you get the Nikon or sigma second hand and are thinking about selling shortly after you won't lose too much cash
 
I am just about to collect my 70-200mm F2.8 VR if you and jmghart62 want to meet up, we can have a play and see whats what.
 
I have the 70-200 VR & love the lens but given the choice again I may well have gone for the 80-200 or Sigma 70-200, a fisheye lens & wider angle than the prime I use now (or maybe just a prime collection as that's all I seem to use at the moment :lol:)

I'm a bit stuck now though as I think I'd really miss the VR for this range now I've used it for so long - stellar lens if you go for it I'm sure you won't regret it - not sure I'd rate it highly enough to totally disregard the cheaper alternatives though :shrug:.
 
Another :thumbs: for the Sigma 70-200 2.8. My copy is great and can produce really sharp pics.
Have heard good things about the Nikon 80-200 though, and you can get that for half the price og the VR one now I think.
 
I use the 80-200 AF-Dn. It produces sharp, contrasty, colorful images from wide open. I wouldn't even consider selling or trading for the 70-200 VR or 70-200 Sigma. I have also used it in heavy showers and snowfall. The lens isn't weather sealed and it held up extremely well. Though I wouldn't recommend this as there is the 'you never know what will happen' factor.

You can get it new for £500. A real bargain if you ask me.

King.

EDIT: Re the focussing: It works just fine for me on my D200's. I use it for aviation and sports photography on a weekly basis. Tracking is fast, responsive and accurate.
 
I went for the sigma 70-200 due to HSM, but mainly because one came up at a very good price. The 80-200 AF speed relies heavily on the body its used on. As im using a D80, i wasn't going to get the best results. The IQ of the 80-200 is outstanding, and is probably even better than the 70-200 VR. The question is, do you need VR, or do you think its worth it? I didn't.
 
When I was in the market for a lens of this range, I opted for the 80-200 as well. It's focusing speed is about 75% that of the Nikon 70-200 AF-S, and obviously a little noisier, but it is lighter, and costs less than half of that of the Nikon 70-200. As for the Sigma, well, the image quality is close, but not as good as the 80-200. so for roughly the same price, you have to decide on whether you want slightly slower focusing but better image quality, or faster focusing and lesser image quality. The image quality of the Nikon 70-200 is up there with the 80-200, but you're paying the premium for VR and SWM.
 
This is going to be my next buy so it's interesting to see there is a distinct love for botht he Nikon 80-200mm and the Sigma 70-200mm. I can't afford the VR Nikon regardless of how good it is but judging by all comments and reviews, the Nikon 80-200 just steals it. However, If I can get a Sigma at the right price, i don't think I'd regret it... after all, it's only in recent years that f/2.8 lens of tis quality has come within the reach of the 'everyman'. Plus, what I'd save by not buying a VR will go towards a fisheye.

Gonna seee if i can get my bruv to get me a good deal out in the states, depending on the warranties provided.
 
MK, tough choices.

Personally I see lenses as investments and worth getting the best. When you consider that a lens should last 10 years plus if you look after it even more so. I try to think about the annual value of a lens - basically total price / 10 as I find that helps justify the **** load of money you need to part with :D This makes the 70-200VR £114.80, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 £59.99 and 80-200 AF-ED f2.8 £68.00 which is a lot less gut wrenching. Looking at things this way and only with the choice of which one to go for (leave moving out of it) I would say that there is only 1 choice and that's the 70-200VR, it has AFS and the VR (VR will help you get at least 1 shot a year that the others wouldn't).

However, you say you are moving and we all know that is expensive (even if you rent). Therefore, I would suggest that you look for a S/H 80-200 f2.8 and pay no more than £300 for it (it is possible) it will be the 1 touch and may be 20years old but it is still quality glass. Then once you've moved start the 70-200VR fund again. This way you get the f2.8 telephoto zoom now and when the time comes I suspect you'll be able to sell the 80-200 for pretty much what you paid for it.
 
All three lenses are outstanding, the Nikon 80-200 has, I'd say, better IQ than the Nikon 70-200 . but that is just slightly better IQ.

Another thing to concider when buying whichever lens, is the resale value. Of course, we mostly buy the lens to use and enjoy ... hopefully and may be make some £££ along the way too; but 10 years down the line - or may be sooner - you will want to sell your lens for somethin else.

Just think, if you're going to go wiht the 80-200, you are bound to buy it 2nd hand from someone who most probably never thought of selling it when he / she bought it.

With that said, the 2nd hand 80-200 may be a good option, but a 2nd hand 70-200VR may be the best option as it would have a stronger residual price.
 
A VR is a lot more than £150 more than an AFS. I recently tried a VR, and then went back to the 80-200. I though the 80-200 was sharper, and had better IQ for me.

Pete
 
i bought the 80 - 200 yesterday and my god its a great lens and cheaper too i wouldof loved a 70 200 vr but my price range didnt allow it so my advice if u can afford it comfortably get it if not your not gonna be dissapointed with the 80 200
 
I've got a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f4 and I have to say I really do rate the Sigma. The bokeh is sublime and on my 5D the IQ is just gorgeous. I was shooting our little girl in the garden the other day and a shaft of light came through the trees. Bang! Spot on, absolutely nailed it.

I think it depends on the subjects you want to shoot MK. If they are fairly static I would not hesitate to recommend the Sigma. I've not used the Nikons but I would think they may be more applicable to the wildlife/motorsport shooters with the VR.

Not much use as a comparison I'm afraid, but I do love my Sigma, so much I bought a 15-30mm today :)
 
I've tried a 70-200 AF-S VR onmy D300 (Flashman's actually) and I would have anything else. It's my next lens and I'm hoping to pick one up next month. It's not only sharp, it's fast and so so quiet.

All the reviews I've read put the Nikkor 70-200 way ahead of the Sigma and ahead of the Canon version too. I understand that there are vignetting issues on the D3, so if you're thinking of moving to FX in the near future then you might want to consider that, but on a DX it's well worth the premium over the other options.
 
icecavern said:
Nikon 80-200 AFS. Can't get better ;)

Pete
Click to expand...

:bat:

alexisonfire said:
I would rather pay £100-£150 more for the 70-200 VR tbh. The AF-S 80-200 is far too expensive for what it is.
Click to expand...

I've got to disagree with that, I sold Pete the 80-200mm AF-S and I now realise it was the best lens I have owned. I replaced it with the the VR which is superb but the AF-S was better in my opinion. In an ideal world I would use the AF-S for equine/sport and the VR for portraits/weddings etc.

It was so good that I have first dibs on Pete's/my old lens when he comes to sell it. :D
 
I have the 80-200 and love it, its the afs version so you can use an extender don't think you can use one with the af-d.
 
Behave you lot! You were supposed to give me a single answer, not all give different answers! :lol:
I think im going to rule out the 80-200mm AF-D as all my other lenses are AF-S/HSM, so I want the focusing speed and silence that im used to. So that leaves;

Nikon 80-200mm AF-S (Very sharp, fast AF)
Sigma 70-200mm HSM (Cheaper, fast AF, 10mm wider, risk of duff copy)
Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR (Expensive, fast AF, 10mm wider, VR)

I really am leaning towards going all the way and getting the VR, but its so damn expensive.

Hacker said:
I've got to disagree with that, I sold Pete the 80-200mm AF-S and I now realise it was the best lens I have owned. I replaced it with the the VR which is superb but the AF-S was better in my opinion. In an ideal world I would use the AF-S for equine/sport and the VR for portraits/weddings etc.

It was so good that I have first dibs on Pete's/my old lens when he comes to sell it. :D
Click to expand...

Why did you prefer the 80-200 Colin? And for what reasons would you use the AF-S over the VR for equine/sport? For me the lens would be used for equine, sport, event and general street type photography.
 
The 80-200 AF-S might be faster and quieter to focus, but is it really worth the massive premium over the AF-D? The image quality difference between the two is not even worth considering, leaving the slightly slower auto focus.

Also the AF-S version is mega rare atm.... Might have a job finding one (not impossible though).
 
Theres no doubt that the AF-S 80-200 is the best performer (minus VR), but cost must be taken into consideration. IMO anyway, the AF-S 80-200 (£750-£800) is not worth the extra money over the AF-D 80-200 (£400-£450) , which on a pro-sumer body will show only a minuscule difference in AF speed. The 70-200VR is a slightly different matter, only you can decide whether you think the VR and AF-S is worth £500 more than the slightly sharper AF-D 80-200.

One thing to take into consideration is the Sigma 70-200 is basically a Nikon 70-200 but without VR. Im not sure on AF speed comparison, but i can confirm that the Sigma is FAST. Available for under £400 too :)
 
Well ive asked our friend Kerso for a 70-200mm VR. :D Its a damn lot of money, but I genuinly think it will end up paying for itself, especially as I now have another job coming up on Sunday and more throughout the summer. I decided on the 70-200mm VR as I wanted the best, especially for a workshorse lens like this. The VR had a few bonus points in several areas; It had the 70-80mm range, VR and full weather sealing. The other contender would have been the 80-200mm AF-S, but this is quite a hard lens to come by and wouldn't have gone for much less than the 70-200mm. :)

Ps. MissMcT, if you read this.. im sorry. I know we need money to move, but i'll save from now on. I promise. :$
 
Ok, only thing that hasn't been mentioned is the 70-200vr performance on fullframe, yep I know your running a D300 but......things are only going to go one way as I see it and that lens is meant to be not the best available on a fullframe body.
I'd get the afd ed, or the af-s if I could afford it/find one.
Wouldn't buy the Sigma unless I was skint....which I am....frequently :lol:
 
i cant wait to get my 70-200VR, i really enjoyed shooting with my D80...

i feel once i get it, i will be a very happy fella lol
 
joxby said:
Ok, only thing that hasn't been mentioned is the 70-200vr performance on fullframe, yep I know your running a D300 but......things are only going to go one way as I see it and that lens is meant to be not the best available on a fullframe body.
I'd get the afd ed, or the af-s if I could afford it/find one.
Wouldn't buy the Sigma unless I was skint....which I am....frequently :lol:
Click to expand...

I certainly wondered about the full frame issue, but to be honest from what I read, its been blown out of proportion. On full frame it vignettes slightly, although that has mostly been removed with vignetting control on the D3, and I tend to actually add vignetting to most of my shots. And it also suffers from slight softness in the corners. Not ideal of course, but I suspect you would need to be pixel peeping to notice it, and I don't think my style and type of photography needs 100% sharpness right into the corners. Finally, there is a 70-200VR MKII expected, but I could be waiting for moneths or even years for that. and anyway, its and excuse to stay with X for a while longer. :thumbs:
 
Really interesting thread - so many opinions! I have the 70-200 VR and *love* it. Quality is superb, superfast focussing, easy to hand-hold, gorgeous bokeh, and the VR is the cherry on top.

I've never tried the 80-200, but always thought the 70-200 and 80-200 to be more or less equivalent - I was interested so many people think the 80-200 to be better. Especially Bjørn Rørslett starts his review of the 70-200 by saying "A huge improvement over the AFS 80-200/2.8" ?!

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR

I'm now interested to try the two and see the difference.
 
Messiah Khan said:
Ps. MissMcT, if you read this.. im sorry. I know we need money to move, but i'll save from now on. I promise. :$
Click to expand...

Tell her house prices are going to continue to fall, so you're much better to wait for now. While you are waiting is the ideal time to invest in all the Nikon glass, since the pound is also going to collapse against the yen, so now is the best time to buy them while they're at their most affordable.

In fact this detailed analysis looks like it should be perfect for you...

http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/7956

:thumbs:
 
Moadib said:
Tell her house prices are going to continue to fall, so you're much better to wait for now. While you are waiting is the ideal time to invest in all the Nikon glass, since the pound is also going to collapse against the yen, so now is the best time to buy them while they're at their most affordable.

In fact this detailed analysis looks like it should be perfect for you...

http://www.esolutionsdata.com/statistic/7956

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

:nono: Don't encourage him!!!
 
I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 hsm (not macro or ver2) and I am very pleased with it. Good value for money. BUT if I was buying a 70-200 now I would spend the extra on the Nikon 70-200 VR. I think my ageing shaky hands would benefit from the VR in some situations.
 
Messiah Khan said:
I certainly wondered about the full frame issue, but to be honest from what I read, its been blown out of proportion.
Click to expand...

Wise words. Reading this month's Digital SLR Photography magazine, Richard Purham the Sun's top sports tog explains why he's just moved from Canon to Nikon. He doesn't mention the vignetting issue at all but does rave about how sharp the 70-200 is.
 
How much was he charging for it? I've got a cheap price from Martin's cameras but from memory Kerso's price wasn't that much cheaper, but I could be worng. I'll be looking to get one in at the end of the month, bonuses depending, but have to weight up the pros and cons of getting a true blue import over the cheaper grey import.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top