Recommendation for zoom lens for D70

akira · 9th December 2004

Hi,

Saw several for sale:
* Nikon AFD 28 - 200
* Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED push-pull version
* Sigma 70-200 HSM (Nikon F Mount)

Can someone tell me what is the difference between the 2 Nikon
models and which is the better lens?

Thanks.

espn · 9th December 2004

One is a wide power zoom, light and covers a lot of range.

The 2nd one is obsolete from production and is the heaviest, oldest among all the rest of the Nikkors in the same range.

Among the 3 I believe the 2nd one would be the best, however it's very heavy.

seankyh · 9th December 2004

Originally Posted by espn

One is a wide power zoom, light and covers a lot of range.

The 2nd one is obsolete from production and is the heaviest, oldest among all the rest of the Nikkors in the same range.

Among the 3 I believe the 2nd one would be the best, however it's very heavy.

The second is the best also because its a faster lens. I own the first one and love it for its range. Sharpness is so-so but with a little USM in PS, no problem.

melnjes · 9th December 2004

2nd one is the best in terms of optical quality, but like what the rest said, it is big and heavy. 2-3 hours of it will give you a good workout.

and you can get f2.8 constant throughout its range :drool:

andy9110 · 9th December 2004

hmmm why not try the Sigma 70-300mm APO macro II.

quite nice and value for money too.

guess alot of fellow nikonian own one too

cheers

digipat2003 · 9th December 2004

y no one vote sigma 70-200 HSM ? no good meh

2100 · 9th December 2004

Originally Posted by digipat2003

y no one vote sigma 70-200 HSM ? no good meh

It is not good first hand. But second hand....woohoos. 1.1k for a 1-3 month old lens, literally brand new. It can go to as low as $800-900 range for > 1 year copies. AF is very fast as long as it doesn't hunt (ie not under too low a light or too low in contrast subjects). If you have a good body, it is really very fast and pretty positive in AF.

kegler · 10th December 2004

Originally Posted by 2100

It is not good first hand. But second hand....woohoos. 1.1k for a 1-3 month old lens, literally brand new. It can go to as low as $800-900 range for > 1 year copies. AF is very fast as long as it doesn't hunt (ie not under too low a light or too low in contrast subjects). If you have a good body, it is really very fast and pretty positive in AF.

so in ur opinion is D70 good enuff to make the sigma fast af?

2100 · 10th December 2004

Originally Posted by kegler

so in ur opinion is D70 good enuff to make the sigma fast af?

Good enough for most stuff with the proper technique, for eg in fashion shows, i know how/what to alternate between center and top focusing pt in portrait orientation to minimize hunting for certain clothings (in fact, once even for certain models' hairstyles). Also, the limiting factor is actually not the lens/HSM but rather the body.

destiny_star · 11th December 2004

Originally Posted by akira

Hi,

Saw several for sale:
* Nikon AFD 28 - 200
* Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED push-pull version
* Sigma 70-200 HSM (Nikon F Mount)

Can someone tell me what is the difference between the 2 Nikon
models and which is the better lens?

Thanks.

would recommend u to get Nikon 80-200 f2.8 ED (2 touch) instead..

sam_always · 11th December 2004

in terms of focusing... which one faster, nikkor 80-200 or sigma 70-200??

akira · 11th December 2004

Thought of gettng the Nikon 70-300mm ED lens, but someone has recommended the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO. Any suggestions?

kegler · 11th December 2004

Do a search for more info....most of the stuff asked has been discuss before.... ive been reading all the discussion from the past....

i remember reading someone mention : AFS is faster than HSM n HSM is faster than AF

and also got comments on tokina is slower n noisy compared to sigma n nikon?

i might remember wrongly...the conclusion is AFS 70-200 VR if u got the $ else settle for sigma HSM 70-200 for now...the nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF also good but heavier.

i think its best if u go down to try it.... slow n noisy to PRO...might be good nuff for us consumers

sam_always · 11th December 2004

tried sigma 70-200 b4 personally... it's size and weight seems ok for me....

destiny_star · 12th December 2004

Originally Posted by sam_always

in terms of focusing... which one faster, nikkor 80-200 or sigma 70-200??

the sigma 70-200 is faster.. coz it's got HSM.. anyway the Nikon AF-D ED 80-200 is not really slow lah.. quite ok for me.. but if speed is of that importance to u then go for sigma..

sofunny · 12th December 2004

nikon AFD is hard for flying speed objects.
sigma is not very hard for them.
in fact, they are only 0.5 -0.8 sec difference.

Witness · 12th December 2004

Originally Posted by akira

Thought of gettng the Nikon 70-300mm ED lens, but someone has recommended the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 AT-X 828 AF PRO. Any suggestions?

i am using it and i am happy with it..... u muz first ask yaself wat u gonna use the lens for at the end of the day...the tokina is good in build and imho, pix quality...

setback is that AF is slow.... noisy not really an issue.....as long as it dun affect the photo can liao...

second hand its price is very buyable ya,,,

cheers..

9th December 2004	#1
akira Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 139	Recommendation for zoom lens for D70 Hi, Saw several for sale: * Nikon AFD 28 - 200 * Nikon 80-200 F2.8 ED push-pull version * Sigma 70-200 HSM (Nikon F Mount) Can someone tell me what is the difference between the 2 Nikon models and which is the better lens? Thanks.

11th December 2004	#13
kegler Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,306	Do a search for more info....most of the stuff asked has been discuss before.... ive been reading all the discussion from the past.... i remember reading someone mention : AFS is faster than HSM n HSM is faster than AF and also got comments on tokina is slower n noisy compared to sigma n nikon? i might remember wrongly...the conclusion is AFS 70-200 VR if u got the $ else settle for sigma HSM 70-200 for now...the nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF also good but heavier. i think its best if u go down to try it.... slow n noisy to PRO...might be good nuff for us consumers Last edited by kegler; 11th December 2004 at 11:16 PM.

9th December 2004	#2
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	One is a wide power zoom, light and covers a lot of range. The 2nd one is obsolete from production and is the heaviest, oldest among all the rest of the Nikkors in the same range. Among the 3 I believe the 2nd one would be the best, however it's very heavy.

9th December 2004	#4
melnjes Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,132	2nd one is the best in terms of optical quality, but like what the rest said, it is big and heavy. 2-3 hours of it will give you a good workout. and you can get f2.8 constant throughout its range :drool:

9th December 2004	#5
andy9110 Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 317	hmmm why not try the Sigma 70-300mm APO macro II. quite nice and value for money too. guess alot of fellow nikonian own one too cheers

9th December 2004	#6
digipat2003 Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 843	y no one vote sigma 70-200 HSM ? no good meh

11th December 2004	#11
sam_always Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 599	in terms of focusing... which one faster, nikkor 80-200 or sigma 70-200??

12th December 2004	#16
sofunny Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 399	nikon AFD is hard for flying speed objects. sigma is not very hard for them. in fact, they are only 0.5 -0.8 sec difference.