The Difference in 70-200?

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

Would like to know out there,

If the Sigma APO 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM a good replacement
for the Nikkor AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8?

While not focusing on the budget wise. But In terms of AF speed, Built quality ie no. of SLD glass used compared to ED glass used, Reproduction quality ie Sharpness.

I've check out the reviews on photo.de
Sigma> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
Nikon> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
And also Nikon from kenrockwell.

But I would love to understand better from the people who actually uses it.
Pls give relevant guidance and pointers.
Thanks!

GmbH. · 13th July 2006

most definitely the Nikkor.

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

Well..quite definite..but just wana know the exact kind of quality both lenses projects and have in similarity/difference comparison.

Need commentaries from people who have used the various lenses.

GmbH. · 13th July 2006

the Sigma appears soft at F2.8
built is not as good as the Nikkor.

optics starts to deteriorate after maybe two years.

ExplorerZ · 13th July 2006

dono about about the sigma 70-200 but i got a nikkor af-d 80-200. the image is considerable sharp at even f2.8. i compared it to my sigma 70-300 stopped down to f5.6 and f8 at range of 100-200mm af-d beat nearly all when it comes to photo edges. for center af-d win sigma slightly more (but that is only at f2.8, not even stopped down while sigma is stopped to sweet spot, f8)

i know sigma 70-300 is of different range/grade/quality but just wanna test out af-d sharpness

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

Ah..thanks for the information. How bout the AF speed wise? Does hunting ever occur under low-lighting conditions?[Nikon 80-200]

GmbH. · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by matthiascr

Ah..thanks for the information. How bout the AF speed wise? Does hunting ever occur under low-lighting conditions?[Nikon 80-200]

AF speed is dependent on your camera body.
CAM900, 1000, 1300, 2000.

low light should be ok as it is a constant F2.8 lens

longkangman · 13th July 2006

If you dont mind the motor noise and speed of the sigma it is good.
Otherwise nikon for its speed and sharp.

YMMV

ExplorerZ · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by longkangman

If you dont mind the motor noise and speed of the sigma it is good.
Otherwise nikon for its speed and sharp.

YMMV

erm but i tot sigma 70-200 HSM was faster than the nikkor AF-D by a touch?

for noise of sigma i got no idea, nv seen or touch one, but af-d is surely abit of noisy

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by longkangman

If you dont mind the motor noise and speed of the sigma it is good.
Otherwise nikon for its speed and sharp.

YMMV

Thanks for the info!

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

I heard that the firmware on the Sigma cause the functionality of the AF button on the D200 to not work. Anyone know if it's fixed?

longkangman · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ

erm but i tot sigma 70-200 HSM was faster than the nikkor AF-D by a touch?

for noise of sigma i got no idea, nv seen or touch one, but af-d is surely abit of noisy

westwest1 · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by matthiascr

I heard that the firmware on the Sigma cause the functionality of the AF button on the D200 to not work. Anyone know if it's fixed?

why would nikon fix that problem?

westwest1 · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by ExplorerZ

erm but i tot sigma 70-200 HSM was faster than the nikkor AF-D by a touch?

for noise of sigma i got no idea, nv seen or touch one, but af-d is surely abit of noisy

time for a af-s liaoz

ExplorerZ · 13th July 2006

Originally Posted by westwest1

time for a af-s liaoz

no $ la

_espn_ · 13th July 2006

Nothing will win the 70-200VR. Just get it

matthiascr · 13th July 2006

It'll inflict a big hole in the wallet

TMC · 14th July 2006

The nikkor will win the sigma in terms of image quality. Wide open, the sigma is not very sharp but then it is still very usable. AFD is a tad slower than the HSM and the HSM a tad faster. I didnt see any deterioration in the optics after 2 years and mine was a pretty old lens. Construction if you are not going to abuse it in sand and rain, the exterior would be the only thing to go.

That said, I would find the AFS80-200 a nicer upgrade than the AFS70-200VR. Lower price and excellent image quality and in my opinion, better ergonomics. Anyone wants a white version?

_espn_ · 14th July 2006

Originally Posted by TMC

That said, I would find the AFS80-200 a nicer upgrade than the AFS70-200VR. Lower price and excellent image quality and in my opinion, better ergonomics. Anyone wants a white version?

Free?

taker · 14th July 2006

Go and get Nikon. Sigma's image is too soft for my liking

. And less well built than Nikon. Nikon's lens coating is also much better.

Save up and get Nikon, you won't regret.

13th July 2006	#1
matthiascr Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 191	The Difference in 70-200? Would like to know out there, If the Sigma APO 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM a good replacement for the Nikkor AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8? While not focusing on the budget wise. But In terms of AF speed, Built quality ie no. of SLD glass used compared to ED glass used, Reproduction quality ie Sharpness. I've check out the reviews on photo.de Sigma> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm Nikon> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm And also Nikon from kenrockwell. But I would love to understand better from the people who actually uses it. Pls give relevant guidance and pointers. Thanks!

13th July 2006	#2
GmbH. Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 392	Re: The Difference in 70-200? most definitely the Nikkor.

13th July 2006	#3
matthiascr Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 191	Re: The Difference in 70-200? Well..quite definite..but just wana know the exact kind of quality both lenses projects and have in similarity/difference comparison. Need commentaries from people who have used the various lenses.

13th July 2006	#4
GmbH. Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 392	Re: The Difference in 70-200? the Sigma appears soft at F2.8 built is not as good as the Nikkor. optics starts to deteriorate after maybe two years.

13th July 2006	#5
ExplorerZ Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: West Legion Posts: 6,785	Re: The Difference in 70-200? dono about about the sigma 70-200 but i got a nikkor af-d 80-200. the image is considerable sharp at even f2.8. i compared it to my sigma 70-300 stopped down to f5.6 and f8 at range of 100-200mm af-d beat nearly all when it comes to photo edges. for center af-d win sigma slightly more (but that is only at f2.8, not even stopped down while sigma is stopped to sweet spot, f8) i know sigma 70-300 is of different range/grade/quality but just wanna test out af-d sharpness __________________ multiply \|\| deviant \|\| APAD 08

13th July 2006	#6
matthiascr Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 191	Re: The Difference in 70-200? Ah..thanks for the information. How bout the AF speed wise? Does hunting ever occur under low-lighting conditions?[Nikon 80-200]

13th July 2006	#8
longkangman Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: sewage drain/manhole Posts: 4,959	Re: The Difference in 70-200? If you dont mind the motor noise and speed of the sigma it is good. Otherwise nikon for its speed and sharp. YMMV __________________ Studio TFCD :-)

13th July 2006	#11
matthiascr Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 191	Re: The Difference in 70-200? I heard that the firmware on the Sigma cause the functionality of the AF button on the D200 to not work. Anyone know if it's fixed?

13th July 2006	#16
_espn_ Deregistered Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 3,553	Re: The Difference in 70-200? Nothing will win the 70-200VR. Just get it

13th July 2006	#17
matthiascr Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 191	Re: The Difference in 70-200? It'll inflict a big hole in the wallet

14th July 2006	#18
TMC Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Beyond Space-Time Continuum Posts: 5,921	Re: The Difference in 70-200? The nikkor will win the sigma in terms of image quality. Wide open, the sigma is not very sharp but then it is still very usable. AFD is a tad slower than the HSM and the HSM a tad faster. I didnt see any deterioration in the optics after 2 years and mine was a pretty old lens. Construction if you are not going to abuse it in sand and rain, the exterior would be the only thing to go. That said, I would find the AFS80-200 a nicer upgrade than the AFS70-200VR. Lower price and excellent image quality and in my opinion, better ergonomics. Anyone wants a white version? __________________ Selling: 32GB Thumbdrive - Patriot Xporter XT 120sgd (Price reduced)

14th July 2006	#20
taker Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 297	Re: The Difference in 70-200? Go and get Nikon. Sigma's image is too soft for my liking . And less well built than Nikon. Nikon's lens coating is also much better. Save up and get Nikon, you won't regret.