The ultimate 70-200/80-200 f2.8 Nikon/Sigma/Canon Thread

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,750
As title really. It seems a good idea to have a thread dedicated to lenses in this area instead of lots of separate requests. We could have similar threads for super wide angle 10-20/12-24 etc lenses.


The idea is for everyone to post personal reviews and ideas, and links to external reviews and example pictures and experiences. As this is a critical lenses type for lots of people, and the prices vary and the investment usually large, it takes many people a long time to decide. There is no clear winner. Lets list the pros and cons and the costs of added benefits like VR/IS.
 
I will start off with a request for Nikon orientated 70-200mm lenses.

I want to invest in some good glass that wont depreciate in value too much and will serve me well on future camera bodies. Currently I have a D70, maybe in a year I will have D300. I currently have the Sigma 70-300mm APO II and its softness and speed are becoming issues.

FOr me there seems to be 3 Choices:

Nikon 80-200 AF-D f.2.8
Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR
Sigma 70-200 EX HSM f2.8

The Nikon 70-200 is significantly more expensive than the other 2. Both Nikons I believe have identical IQ, but the 70-200 offers VR and slightly faster focusing. But how much much faster focusing, and does VR make a difference and is it work the cost? I hear the Sigma mostly has good IQ, is slightly slower than the 70-200 Nikon (perhaps same speed as Nikon 80-200)
 
Darren555 said:
It's also big & heavy with slow AF and no VR option.
Click to expand...

Refering to the Nikon?
Yeah...I guess, but I've used used one for gig photography, which is pretty tough for AF and it was fine. Sure it could always be faster, but moving that massive glass with just the internal AF motor is a tall order. Oh and the VR is twice the price.

Couple of examples, slightly soft because I couldn't get a faster exposure. This was using a rather old version, with the push/pull zoom and no tripod collar.
2273480565_79217295be.jpg

2274275650_90109e3ef5.jpg

bigger..http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertgilbert86/
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
I will start off with a request for Nikon orientated 70-200mm lenses.

I want to invest in some good glass that wont depreciate in value too much and will serve me well on future camera bodies. Currently I have a D70, maybe in a year I will have D300. I currently have the Sigma 70-300mm APO II and its softness and speed are becoming issues.

FOr me there seems to be 3 Choices:

Nikon 80-200 AF-D f.2.8
Nikon 70-200 AF-S VR
Sigma 70-200 EX HSM f2.8

The Nikon 70-200 is significantly more expensive than the other 2. Both Nikons I believe have identical IQ, but the 70-200 offers VR and slightly faster focusing. But how much much faster focusing, and does VR make a difference and is it work the cost? I hear the Sigma mostly has good IQ, is slightly slower than the 70-200 Nikon (perhaps same speed as Nikon 80-200)
Click to expand...

Ive got the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM for my D80. It's an older non-macro version, but not to bothered about the macro side. Some say the non-macro is a better lens.
Focus wise, its quick with the HSM with very little hunting.
Image wise, bit soft wide open, but stop down to f/4 and its great.
Weight wise, you can tell its there, not the lightest of things.
As for pics, here a few taken with it over the past week.

2269847418_89c9bddefc.jpg


and my favourite pic at moment.

2263106997_fe6f67a352.jpg
 
I have a Canon 70 - 200 F/4 L non-IS. Absolutely fantastic lens, light, extremely portable and very sharp right through the zoom range.

The IS feature is probably useful for low light, however I don't think I could justify spending the extra money on it.

Someday I will look to upgrade to the bigger brother of this lens, the 70 - 200 F/2.8, that is a far away purchase though.
 
I love my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. It's heavy, and expensive, and just amazing - I'll put some pics up here later tonight of some weekendy shots. :)
 
A lot of false information going around in here...

The nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D is lighter than the nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8, the same weight as the sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and smaller than both.

In terms of IQ the nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D comes out on top followed by the nikon and sigma 70-200.

As for AF speed, the 80-200 is slightly slower than the AF-S 70-200, but the same as the sigma 70-200. Put the 80-200 on a D200 body upwards though and it matches the speeds of AF-S.
 
I've got the Canon 70-200 f/4L, really love it and it has proved to be a right good workhorse for me in a variety of situations from events coverage to telephoto landscapes.

I'm hoping to buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS when the next cashback promotion starts, but I don't think I'll get rid of my f/4 - I'm sure it'll still have a place in my bag for certain shoots :)
 
TomWilko said:
The IS feature is probably useful for low light, however I don't think I could justify spending the extra money on it.
Click to expand...

FWIW the IS version also has redesigned, better optics than the older non-IS F4 (many consider it to have the best image quality of all canon zooms, including the 2.8 IS). Probably not enough difference to justify you getting one, just thought I'd mention it though.
 
Last edited:
NuclearWinter said:
FWIW the IS version also has redesigned, better optics than the older non-IS F4 (many consider it to have the best image quality of all canon zooms, including the 2.8 IS). Probably not enough difference to justify you getting one, just thought I'd mention it though.
Click to expand...

Interesting to note.

On the Nikon side the IQ is identical on the 80-200 and the 70-200 VR.


Therefore there is effectively 700-800$ price difference just to get VR and an extra 10mm...
Likewise with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8.
 
I'm expanding the remit of this thread:)

I really really fancy the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. Seen it 2nd hand for £650, which is the same price as the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 new (in the UK - lot cheaper from HK). I'm torn between looking for a 2nd hand f/2.8 beast, or just getting a shiny new f/4.

f/2.8 pros: aperture baby! - 2*TC for a 600mm f/5.6 lens - looks the dogs danglies

f/4 pros: Sitll decent aperture - lighter - less conspicuous



Help!!
 
Go with the 2.8!! All that way :) Just got my self a 70 - 200L 2.8 IS, after having the 100-400, and the difference the aperture makes is astonashing!! (Got a 2x extender...IQ is the same at 400mm!!)
 
*bump*

What is the re-sale value of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR?
Local cmaera shop offers the cheapest rpice in Switzerlland, only about 20CHF more than the cheapest online price and all the other on line prices re at least a few hundred more. The lens is new, boxed, full warranty and everything. An excellent price.

How well do these lenses hold their value?


But then, the Sigma F2.8 is so much cheaper.. as far as I can tell the IQ and AF is acceptably similar to the Nikon. ALl I am missing is VR. VR sounds great but I don't think it is worth the extra $$$$$$$$?

The price difference would allow me to buy some other lenses, or a new pair of skis, or new guitar..
 
Also, how long do these lenses really last if well looked after and not overused? Will the Nikon still be going strong in 10 years?
 
growse said:
I love my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS. It's heavy, and expensive, and just amazing - I'll put some pics up here later tonight of some weekendy shots. :)
Click to expand...

What body do you have mate?

Next month my purchase of the 17-55 IS USM is paid off in full (buy now pay 12mths later option!) so I'll be in the market for a killer tele for weddings and have been eyeing up the 70-2-- 2.8 L IS USM and would be inetersted in finding out how it fares on non Pro bodies like the 350D !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom