Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200 - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

01/07/2009 05:29:19 PM · #1

I'm going to be in the position in a month or so to get myself a new toy, I've pretty much decided between one of these:

Sigma Lens 70-200mm f/2.8II APO EX DG HSM Macro
Nikkor Lens - AF 80-200 f/2.8D ED

Here's where I'm confused. Right across the range Sigma lenses are usually cheaper than the Nikons but this one is about the same price as the Nikon, only very slightly less. It is also about the same size and weight. The reviews of the Sigma are excellent, haven't read the Nikon reviews yet, but I assume they will be equally good.

I'm wondering if there's any particular benefit in buying the Sigma over the Nikon given they are the same price. Other than the extra 10mm the Sigma has, and the Macro capability which I probably wouldn't use as I have a dedicated Macro lens (Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR), then should I just get the Nikon, or for the price would you suggest I go for something completely different?

StOlafPhotographer

Nikon D200

01/07/2009 05:52:51 PM · #2

In my opinion, the only reason to buy third party lenses is because your "name brand" lens maker doesn't have something that a third party does. For example, Nikon has no fast primes, fast for my tastes, so I've been looking into getting a sigma 20 1.8. That's the only reason, in my opinion, that you should buy third party. I feel as though Nikon/Cannon lenses are just built more solidly, better images quality, and they're not back engineered like sigmas. The 80-200 is a phenomenal lens and I think if you do not need those extra 10mm and the macro that it would do well for your purposes. Depending on your price point, make sure to get the latest iteration of that lens, the AF-S version.

Hope this helps,

Evan

PS wanted to add quick, spending a little more money up-front will always pay off in the long-run IMO, so if you have the money go for the Nikon.

caba

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/07/2009 05:52:52 PM · #3

Amazonhas some reviews that might answer your questions. I have the 80-200, wish it would focus faster as in a "s" lens.

Frank

smurfguy

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2009 06:01:56 PM · #4

I lost my brand-name lens snobishness when I switch to Nikon and realized that all the "good" Nikon lenses are >$1500.

Yes, I think the reason the Sigma is priced accordingly is because it has HSM (hyper-sonic motor, which Canon calls USM and Nikon calls SWM (AF-S)). These lenses focus quickly and silently. Having recently become very annoyed with slow-focusing lenses, I'll be buying the Sigma (though a used one for $500).

In the Nikon lineup, AF-S lenses are on the more expensive end.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

01/07/2009 06:34:26 PM · #5

I'm usually a fan of a well priced off brand lens, but personally, in this case, I'd get the Nikon. It focuses slower than the Sigma, but otherwise, it's an excellent lens. Reviews I read of the Sigma are all of the "it's great for the price" variety, then they go on to say it's soft at the long end, it has problems with CA, the reviewer couldn't get a copy that autofocused correctly, etc. Every review seems to have a different problem, to the point where I wonder if Sigma has put out any decent copies of this lens. Nikon's quality control is just better.

andrewt

Nikon D810

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

01/07/2009 06:47:19 PM · #6

I have the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 HSM APO with macro and have used the Nikkor 80-200. My experience with both lenses is that they are very comparable. The AF of the Sigma is an advantage over the 80-200. The pic quality is comparable IMO. Build quality slightly better on the Nikon. Never had any issues with my Sigmas. If you look at my profile , I do use a bunch of Sigmas and have never had any issues at all. Just my opinion hope it helps.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

01/07/2009 08:43:29 PM · #7

I don't have a dog in this race but I can add that the Nikon has a longer warranty by one year. Normally you can't beat the Nikon build.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

01/07/2009 09:24:40 PM · #8

I have the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and have had really good results with it. There were some times, however, that when I attached it to the D200, it would trick the camera into thinking the battery was empty. I think it had something to do with the weight of the lens, and bad contacts with the camera. The problem seemed to go away after a few weeks though.

I havent bought any third party lenses however. I did buy a cheap nikon lens originally, and was so dissatisfied with it that i promised myself never to cheap out on lenses again. The lenses will always be in my bag, even if I update the body, so I want the absolute best lens I can get.. So i stick with the nikon... they are build specifically for the camera.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/07/2009 10:00:41 PM · #9

Surprised to see

NikonJeb hasn't had a say yet...but I know we are both very very very happy with the Nikon 18-200mm lens. Have nothing bad to say about it - wideangle, zoom, telephoto, I've even made it shoot macros. Jeb, no slouch in the ribbon department, sold all his other lenses and now uses only that lens. I use mine about 95% of the time.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/07/2009 10:19:49 PM · #10

Originally posted by snaffles:

Surprised to see NikonJeb hasn't had a say yet...but I know we are both very very very happy with the Nikon 18-200mm lens. Have nothing bad to say about it - wideangle, zoom, telephoto, I've even made it shoot macros. Jeb, no slouch in the ribbon department, sold all his other lenses and now uses only that lens. I use mine about 95% of the time.

I would love to, I've read lots of great reviews about that lens, and just when I get all excited about it I realise it's a DX and would limit my D700 to 5 MP :(

spiritualspatula

01/07/2009 10:30:10 PM · #11

Also, FWIW, in this case the 18-200 wouldn't be a good choice anyway since I'm assuming you're going for a faster zoom. The 18-200, though a very versatile focal length and lens, is only 3.5.

ETA: Almost forgot- if you don't have your heart set on a zoom, you can pick up the Nikon 180 2.8 AF-D used an in great condition for around 500ish or less.

Message edited by author 2009-01-07 22:32:54.

cryan

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Nikon

01/07/2009 10:35:01 PM · #12

Ok, I've shot extensivly with the 80-200 and the 70-200 for Nikon. Love them both. The main reason the Nikon and Sigma are close in price is due to the 80-200 being pretty old. There are also 2 versions of it out there. One is a push pull, the other is a "twistie". The 80-200 is very sharp but the fucus is a tad slow, however I've had great results with it. IMHO if you have the money to spend get the Nikon, it will focus as fast as the Sigma, trust me on this one, and will be tack sharp.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

01/07/2009 10:42:08 PM · #13

Also of use to you:
DPReview Sigma
DPReview Nikon

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

01/07/2009 11:03:42 PM · #14

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Also of use to you:
DPReview Sigma
DPReview Nikon

Not that the Nikon review is of the 70-200 VR 2.8 which is a whole different animal than the 80-200 2.8.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

01/07/2009 11:19:05 PM · #15

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Also of use to you:
DPReview Sigma
DPReview Nikon

Not that the Nikon review is of the 70-200 VR 2.8 which is a whole different animal than the 80-200 2.8.

Whoops my bad... got link happy I guess... well the Sigma link is still worth looking at I guess...

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

01/07/2009 11:25:13 PM · #16

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Also of use to you:
DPReview Sigma
DPReview Nikon

Not that the Nikon review is of the 70-200 VR 2.8 which is a whole different animal than the 80-200 2.8.

Whoops my bad... got link happy I guess... well the Sigma link is still worth looking at I guess...

Yea, I would pick up the Nikon 70-300 in a flash if I could afford it (and justify it to myself) but I don't shoot quite enough in the long range to justify that added cost.

gwsallen

Nikon D300

01/08/2009 12:52:09 AM · #17

Stick to the origin Nikon 80-200. 5 star reviews at amazon.com
//www.amazon.com/Nikon-80-200mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOH/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1231393739&sr=1-32

Venom

Canon EOS R

Canon RF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM

01/08/2009 01:09:24 AM · #18

The only reason I bought and use the Sigma as compared to it's Nikon counter-part is the price.

Nikon 70-200 2.8 = $1,500
Sigma 70-200 2.8 = $699

Good luck with your choice. -BB