Anyone have an opinion on this? I currently own a Nikon d60, and a Nikon F100. I will be using this lens on My F100, for indoor sports, so the fact that the 80-200mm dosn't have a motor isn't imperative. Reviews seem to be excellent for both, but I am questioning the durability of the 70-200mm. But the 70-200 is cheaper...
Sigma 70-200mm vs. Nikon 80-200mm?
(12 posts) (9 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Sorry, I double posted. Stupid browser...
Posted 4 years ago # -
I'd go with the cheaper sigma. A lot of what you pay for on the pro-quality Nikon glass is build quality. For indoor sports, you probably don't need it (asumeing we are talking about high-school or something like that. Jam packed pro-sports are a different story but if you can afford that without a press-pass, then you don't need to worry about cost :).
The nikon is probably a little sharper, but for sports that's probably less important. My favorite sports shots are shots that have just a little blur to them to get a feel for the motion that's occurring. If you need to see the leather grain on a basketball, knock yourself out with the Nikon. Otherwise, I think you will be happy with the sigma.
I don't own either lens, so take that with a grain of salt.
Posted 4 years ago # -
JMCS - the sigma is cheaper, but it's a lottery. You can get a great lens or a shitty one. I had this lens in the past and was very disappointed with the results. When it worked the images were really outstanding, unfortunately most of the times there were some problems with it; as it was the most unpredictable and unrepeatable lens I've ever had.
Posted 4 years ago # -
adamz is 100% right. Sigma lenses can be feast or famine. I like buying used from KEH since they have the BEST customer service and return policy. They will even test out the copy they will be sending you and they have been nice enough to tell me a copy isnt that great. If you ask the right questions they will do you right. But when you get a good copy Sigma's can be awesome!
Posted 4 years ago # -
At one time I debated this issue myself. I finally went with the Nikon 70-200mm VR and have never looked back. Here's my thought. If you don't buy the best (Nikon) then every time a shot is not perfect you will regret the purchase and wonder if it's your lens. If you buy the best then at least you will know that it's not your equipment letting you down.
I have rented the 80-200mm lens as well. It's a great lens. However, I would hang in there a little longer until you can get the 70-200mm VR lens.
Here's my non-technical review of the Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR lens.
Good Luck,
Brenda ReadPosted 4 years ago # -
Why are you using it on the Film Camera ?? Digital excels in sports. Can I suggest you look into the Sigma 50-150 HSM F2.8 for your D60 instead? gives you more range . is smaller in size, lighter and you can click away to your hearts content at maximum FPS without worrying about the cost of film. Leave the film Camera for what Film is good at ie more deliberate photography like Portraits, landscape and Still life.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Have you ever noticed that people look at the lens you carry - show up with a Sigma and your will be dismissed as a "wanna-be" photographer. Yea, I know the social aspects don't make better photos, but people do look to see what you brought to the game.
Posted 4 years ago # -
snaketail - I disagree with You, most people doesn't distinguish the brand (if they are not photographers), so they don't care either You use sigma, nikkor, tokina or any other brand. the thing they notice is the size of the lens not the brand, and the bigger the lens You have the more "pro" it looks.
OTOH, I also disagree that one can get all the pictures with any lens one can have. sure, one can take very good photo using a build in camera, but it's more likely to get the results (and I'm talking only about the technical aspect) with bigger, heavier and more pricey lenses - and not because they look professional, but because they are simply moving the border of what is and what isn't possible to capture. That's one of the things my wife (and probably most of Yours partners) still doesn't understand, when I'm buying a $2000 lens it's not to look more "pro" but it's to achieve the results I want (and push the limit little bit further).
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you can afford the Nikon I would recommend the 80-200mm f/2.8 over the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. I won the Nikon 80-200mm 2 ring, non AF-S version and I couldn't be happier. Even with a Kenko Pro 1.4x teleconverter it provides beautiful images of my son's soccer matches. I had a different Sigma from the one you are considering but I must say I was very disappointed with the lens quality. It broke on me twice during normal use--stopped zooming and and then started front-focusing, I lost confidence in the lens and sold it.
The Nikon's seem to have better quality control and the 'pro' level f/2.8 glass is built like a tank. I got my 80-200mm used for around $650 on nikonians.org 'for sale' forum. If you are using it with the D60 then you would be better off getting the AF-S version.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Call me a retard, but ..err.. actually don't call me one
Posted 4 years ago # -
I've been periodically checking B&H, and other websites for a AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 for quite some time now. I'd ratherpick the lens up in person, than order it online. But, I've pretty much made up my mind on an 80-200.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
