Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or similar non-VR Nikon?

DigitalRelish

DigitalRelish

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,240
Name
Will
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm missing a f/2.8 zoom in the 70-200 range and am considering either a used Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II or perhaps one of the older, non-VR Nikon f/2.8 zoom lenses in a similar focal range. Thing is, I'm not clued up as to how the Nikons rate against each other.

Primary use will be for shooting people, I'm not looking to spend over £500 and I'd prefer to avoid the push/pull lenses (personal preference). When I shot Canon, I had the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and would love the VR equivalent, but don't have the budget for it.

Could anyone offer any advice or links to some comparative reviews?

Thanks
 
PhoenixUK said:
Considered the Tamron?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I dunno. From the reviews I've read, it seems the Tamron beats the Sigma optically, but the Sigma has better AF performance. I've tried the Sigma HSM I and found the AF performance to be okay. Not as snappy as the Canon, though. As a result, I'm not so sure about the Tamron.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Hmmm, I dunno. From the reviews I've read, it seems the Tamron beats the Sigma optically, but the Sigma has better AF performance. I've tried the Sigma HSM I and found the AF performance to be okay. Not as snappy as the Canon, though. As a result, I'm not so sure about the Tamron.
Click to expand...

What camera are you putting it on? I don't usually have a problem with the AF speed with it on my D300 when I'm shooting football games. It's not as rapid as the Nikon70-200 VR (obviously) but it's certainly very usable, especially when you consider the optics which are extremely good.
 
I used a borrowed 80-200mm AF-S for a couple of weeks, worked brilliantly, super sharp acress FX and lovely colours. Obviously they are quite old lenses now, but if you got a good one and it was reliable, then I'm sure it would hold it's value until upgrade time.
 
bigNeil said:
I used a borrowed 80-200mm AF-S for a couple of weeks, worked brilliantly, super sharp acress FX and lovely colours. Obviously they are quite old lenses now, but if you got a good one and it was reliable, then I'm sure it would hold it's value until upgrade time.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a great lens, but the used price is more than twice my budget!
 
I have the 70-200 2.8 mkII macro from sigma and despite all the moaning about the mkI being sharper i really dont see it, ive never had an issue and it focuses almost as fast as the nikon on my d200.

Its a brilliant lens and you really wont regret it :D
 
DigitalRelish said:
I'm sure it's a great lens, but the used price is more than twice my budget!
Click to expand...

What about Nikon 80-200 AF-D (both push-pull version and two ring ones)?

I went for last AF-D in that range (2 ring version) and it is a fantastic lens. Very sharp wide open, no problem in the corners and fast AF (on my D200 at least and on D700 I have tried). It is usually significantly cheaper than AF-S though to me just as good.
 
dalex_257 said:
What about Nikon 80-200 AF-D (both push-pull version and two ring ones)?

I went for last AF-D in that range (2 ring version) and it is a fantastic lens. Very sharp wide open, no problem in the corners and fast AF (on my D200 at least and on D700 I have tried). It is usually significantly cheaper than AF-S though to me just as good.
Click to expand...

As above, really. Would prefer not to have push/pull lens. Otherwise, don't really know much about the older Nikons! What can you tell me?
 
dalex_257 said:
What about Nikon 80-200 AF-D (both push-pull version and two ring ones)?
.
Click to expand...

Avoid the one ring push pull version for anything moving, it is a bit slow to focus, especially compared to the newer lenses.
 
DigitalRelish said:
As above, really. Would prefer not to have push/pull lens. Otherwise, don't really know much about the older Nikons! What can you tell me?
Click to expand...

My AF-D is really fast. It is not silent as AF-S is but it is certainly much faster than some other AFS, HSM or even other AF-D I own or had owned. Some say it is slower to focus than AFS but I certainly was able to track moving targets with no problem (including flying birds - though I don't shoot that kind of photos and did it for fun). And my god it is sharp - one of my sharpest lenses. It is also an old style Nikon Pro lens - build from metal so will probably sustain a direct missile hit ;)
 
The 80-200 AF-D (newer 2-ring version) should be within your budget. As dalex says, it's super sharp and for everything bar really fast motorsport the AF is fast enough. It's one of my favourite lenses, if I hadn't needed the faster af of the 70-200 I would still have mine :thumbs:
 
Sharpness wise 80-200 AFD (2 ring version):



For the other photos (mostly snaps in a zoo) - look at my gallery here (the first three photos is by the other lenses - the rest are all by 80-200) and/or here (the first two photos is by the other lenses - the rest are all by 80-200).
 
Images from the 80-200 AFD look great :thumbs:. I think the trick is going to be trying to find one within budget. Only place I can see one if at Grays and they start from £695.
 
I got mine here on TP for 550. Post a WTB - someone might have it for sale.
 
Absolutely - Nikon 80-200mm 2 ring version is the one to go for
 
Seems to be a few people wanting these lenses in the wanted section!
 
The Sigma 70-200 2.8 is a great lens,.............. and thats comparing it to the Nikon 70-200 VR, I've owned both, very very good lens for the money.

Taken with the Sigma 70-200,(Frenzied Dwarf is the proud owner now)...... if the AF can keep up with this coming head on,........ it will do for anything.

Hawk02.jpg
 
I would agree with the AF 80-200 *not push pull* I just got one a couple of months ago for £500 complete with the nice case etc. I am really happy with it optically. Its a little clunky when focussing but that really doesn't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top