| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2009 05:18:47 PM · #1 |
Anyone have opinions on this lens Nikon 80-200 f2.8 no VR versus this lens Sigma 50-500.
I own the Nikon but am considering unloading it because the reach is not as much as the Sigma, AND I'm not sure it's anymore sharp than what the Sigma might be. I'd like to hear from those who have tried both. Thanks. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 05:49:51 PM · #2 |
| I've had the Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8 which is very similar to the Nikon 80-200 2.8 in sharpness. I've also had a Tamron 200-500 which is similar to the Sigma. I can tell you that the less expensive long lenses, the Sigma and the Tamron, will not hold a candle to the build, color quality or sharpness of the two Nikon's. After needing more reach, going the TC route and then buying the less expensive long lens I ended up seeling them all and buying the Nikon 80-400 VR. It has very good sharpness and color although it is the old focus system which makes it slower. They keep taking about coming out with an AF-S verison but to date they have not. If they did then that would be well worth the price over the Tamorn or the Sigma whcih are even slower than the old Nikon. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 07:46:20 PM · #3 |
any other opinions?
My thinking is that at 200 the Nikon is not sharp at all, while the Sigma could be sharper any where from 150 to 400. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 09:01:23 PM · #4 |
Bigma + 1.4 teleconvertor = //faidoi.deviantart.com/art/Lion-74809327 (click image to enlarge)
Latest image with Bigma (without teleconvertor)- //faidoi.deviantart.com/art/Eri-Tagaya-122358114
Message edited by author 2009-05-14 21:04:17. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 09:27:15 PM · #5 |
| I would be interested in your 80-200.... |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 09:29:49 PM · #6 |
| I do not have any experience with the Sigma. But I have the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and I love it. Apart from it being a heavy tank of a lens it is awesome. |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 09:57:17 PM · #7 |
Jeb-
I'm not entirely sure just yet about selling it. But I might come to the GTG in NE PA so maybe we can talk then.
The lens is sharp at 135mm, but I would just like a little more distance and so my question is would the Bigma provide comparable sharpness in the 200-400 range? |
|
|
|
05/14/2009 10:09:46 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by smichener:
Jeb-
I'm not entirely sure just yet about selling it. But I might come to the GTG in NE PA so maybe we can talk then. |
That'd be cool......
(Tries to figure out how to make a bottle of drinking water into a Mickey......) |
|
|
|
05/15/2009 12:57:49 AM · #9 |
Here's a recent one I shot at 500mm with the Sigma. 
Be aware that it weighs upwards of a pound more than the 80-200. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/25/2025 11:45:07 PM EST.
