suggestion of telephoto lens

[averynkh]

hi guys, i owned a nikon d80, tokina 11-16mm f2-8 and tamron 17-55mm f2.8, well i always wanted to get a constant lens with f2.8

in fact nikon's 70-200mm is my aim but it is really expensive to me, and i found out this sigma's, is this a good choice for me? and i think tamron has similiar lens too... can you guys suggested me a telephoto lens as i think i really need one... btw, is this lens compatible with nikon d80? :what:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/

guys, are they the same lens? i feel a bit confused...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-70-200m...66:2|39:1|72:1690|240:1318|301:1|293:1|294:50

my main consideration is dun be so expensive like nikon's... and of coz f2.8 and it is constant..

 

[luntut]

hi guys, i owned a nikon d80, tokina 11-16mm f2-8 and tamron 17-55mm f2.8, well i always wanted to get a constant lens with f2.8

in fact nikon's 70-200mm is my aim but it is really expensive to me, and i found out this sigma's, is this a good choice for me? and i think tamron has similiar lens too... can you guys suggested me a telephoto lens as i think i really need one... btw, is this lens compatible with nikon d80? :what:

.......


my main consideration is dun be so expensive like nikon's... and of coz f2.8 and it is constant..

firstly, tamron is 17-50. not 17-55.

secondly, are you getting a f/2.8 lens for the sake of getting it, or do you need it?

thirdly, what do you shoot? not every situation calls for 2.8 lens.

fourth, if you ask me, sigma lens just DO NOT make the cut, in terms of IQ or built. they scratch too easily. I have been manhandling my 70-200 in many ways most other lens owners will not use, and its still in pristine condition.

btw, consider the nikon 70-300 VR.

IQ is amazingly good, and its lighter, you get a longer range. so what if you lose that f/2.8.

 

[photobugg]

It's true that not everyone needs an f2.8. I am planning to get the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 to replace my Nikkor 18-200VR. I went to a shop to try the Nikkor 70-300VR but find that the image quality is similar to my 18-200VR. Of course, that's indoor without flash.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

fourth, if you ask me, sigma lens just DO NOT make the cut, in terms of IQ or built. they scratch too easily. I have been manhandling my 70-200 in many ways most other lens owners will not use, and its still in pristine condition.

I beg to differ. True, they scratch easily, but my copy has great IQ and it really worth it for the price i got it for


here're 2 shots i took with it

 

[tltan]

how about Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D. gives u 2.8 without VR. just note the slight back focusing when using on DX at 185-200mm.

 

[rijac]

how about Nikkor AF 80-200 f2.8D. gives u 2.8 without VR. just note the slight back focusing when using on DX at 185-200mm.

good lens!

 

[Omega23]

needless to say.. get the nikkor 80-200 f2.8 if you can't afford the 70-200 yet..For about the same price the sigma and tamron version just dun make it.

 

[Lomographer]

If on budget, for tele get the 55-200 VR

If you have a few hundred bucks get the 70-300 VR

If you have extra cash and need the f/2.8 for low light, 80-200 AF-D

If you are really low on budget, 70-300 G.

 

[cichlid]

I beg to differ. True, they scratch easily, but my copy has great IQ and it really worth it for the price i got it for


here're 2 shots i took with it

Nice shots, I like the colours, hee

 

[frederickykfoo]

Since you have Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
why not Tamron AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp

 

[Daedalus Trent]

I beg to differ. True, they scratch easily, but my copy has great IQ and it really worth it for the price i got it for


here're 2 shots i took with it

Nice shots, I like the colours, hee

Thanks! Yea, really love my Siggy It peels like a leper after a couple of years but it's IQ's really good. Provided you get a good copy

 

[averynkh]

thansk guys...
well, i dun choose 80-200mm coz it has big gap from 50mm from my range of lenses
i dun choose tamron coz i think sigma has better focusing motor than its
i dun choose 70-300mm VR coz i used this lens before, i dun like it
i dun find it is good enough in low light condition

seem like my choice is only go for sigma ;p
but from my first thread, the two links i pasted, are they the same?
coz i intended to get a second hand one:lovegrin:
which is that one from ebay

 

[dazism]

just about to suggest AF-D 80-200 if 70-200mm VR is too ex.
or a budget one would be 70-300mm VR.

cant comment on sigma or tamron as nvr try it b4.

persoanlly i dun feel the 10mm gap difference between 70-80 make lotta difference. since the purpose is to get a close up.
some photos from af-d 80-200mm to share.

 

[averynkh]

just about to suggest AF-D 80-200 if 70-200mm VR is too ex.
or a budget one would be 70-300mm VR.

cant comment on sigma or tamron as nvr try it b4.

persoanlly i dun feel the 10mm gap difference between 70-80 make lotta difference. since the purpose is to get a close up.
some photos from af-d 80-200mm to share.

no, i mean my other lenses, one is tamron 17-50mm
if i get that 80-200, i will lost 50mm between 80mm this big gap
thats y i am thinking of sigma 70-200mm

oh yeah, well, i think i will need a telephoto lens as sometimes i will go around
and i like to travel, my lens is untill 50mm, its not really fun to me
i like to go zoo as well, and i always get sad coz i cant zoom far...
haha

 

[Kenneth83]

i think i have been poisoned just by reading this thread... =X

 

[nice1888]

just about to suggest AF-D 80-200 if 70-200mm VR is too ex.
or a budget one would be 70-300mm VR.

cant comment on sigma or tamron as nvr try it b4.

persoanlly i dun feel the 10mm gap difference between 70-80 make lotta difference. since the purpose is to get a close up.
some photos from af-d 80-200mm to share.

Wow, nice colour. Thank you for sharing.
I have been cracking my head which one to buy, AF-D 80-200 or 70-200mm VR (Got budget for either one).
I got my answer now (is AF-D 80-200mm).
Sorry to TS for OT. If I want to buy a third party teleconverter (in my mind now is Kenko Pro300 1.4 or 2) to go with this AF-D 80-200. Any advice for me. Thank you in advance.

 

[jaRv1s]

thansk guys...
well, i dun choose 80-200mm coz it has big gap from 50mm from my range of lenses
i dun choose tamron coz i think sigma has better focusing motor than its
i dun choose 70-300mm VR coz i used this lens before, i dun like it
i dun find it is good enough in low light condition

seem like my choice is only go for sigma ;p
but from my first thread, the two links i pasted, are they the same?
coz i intended to get a second hand one:lovegrin:
which is that one from ebay

that 30mm gap is okay to me (personally)... just a few steps ahead from 50mm... or a few steps back from 80mm...

Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG HSM... saw this lens at www.photozone.de... amazingly MTF resolution just slightly lower than 70-200mm f/2.8G VR... but having lower CA and distortion... but 50mm difference means more than few steps liao....

 

[Daedalus Trent]

seem like my choice is only go for sigma ;p
but from my first thread, the two links i pasted, are they the same?
coz i intended to get a second hand one:lovegrin:
which is that one from ebay

Well, if it's any consolation, the one i'm using is the one in the ebay URL

The version in the other link is the newer 'MACRO' one. The only difference btwn the 2 is that the newer one has a shorter minimum focusing distance :think:

 

[Cactus jACK]

i'd still aim for the 70-200vr, but in the meantime, try a 85f1.8, 105f2.8vr, 105f2 or 135f2 (if you really want, you can also consider the 180f2.8). these are more affordable, in varying degrees.

as some have mentioned, the AF-D80-200f2.8 only if you know you don't need the VR... else you would always be tempted to upgrade to the VR.

 

[dazism]

try the AF-S 70-200mm VR from the seller when i bought my afd 80-200mm
is superb and very quiet. IQ wise althought not much different from afd 80-200mm
but i'll said the VR really rox.

VR feel are like 70-300mm VR. but is much quiet.

but over budget. T_T"