1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

2.8 Zoom

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by JasonL, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. JasonL

    JasonL

    385
    Sep 26, 2008
    New Jersey
    Hello everyone. I have posted before about this, but I am comming closer to a decision. I am in Lust of a 80 to 200 or 70 to 200 2.8 lens. The Nikon VR is just plain out of my price range. I have read alot that the Tamron has very slow autofocus. So that is pretty much ruled out. I am now faced with the sigma and the used nikon versions. I know I want a D version since i do use flash often also. I see Sigma has their version II now. Does anyone know the difference from the prev version. The other is does anyone have any comparasions between the older nikon push pull's and the AFD 2 ring vs the sigma. Thanks for your help.
     
  2. I haven't run across anyone who considers the "d" feature as critical. Check out what Ken Rockwell has to say about it.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm#afd

    In terms of image quality, the Nikon push-pull and the Nikon 2 ring versions share the same optical formula, and will produce identical (excellent) results. I haven't used the push-pull, so no comment on focusing speed/accuracy.
     
  3. I love my 80-200 D

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2008
  4. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    One issue to consider is that the older push-pull models (allthough optically equal) don't have the tripod collar that two ring model has. If you use a tripod a lot this might be an issue.
     
  5. sbruno

    sbruno

    892
    Jul 20, 2007
    Baltimore, MD
    I had a Sigma 70-200 HSM D APO (original version with HSM; without the "macro"). It's a great lens. For the price of a used 80-200 push-pull (e.g., about $500), you get fast focusing and a tripod collor, plus excellent image quality wide open at any focal length. The one IQ difference I noticed was that the 80-200 images had a slightly more appealing ("Nikon-like") color rendition, the Sigma possibly a little more accurate colors. Images have a punch with either lens, though. You can't go wrong either way.

    I think the Sigma Macro II version has improved cose-focusing ability over the initial Macro version.

    Steve

    EDIT: I meant to add that I also had an 80-200 for a short time but sent it back due to front focus on my D200. I understand that this is not an uncommon issue. I'm now awaiting the arrival of a recently-ordered Tokina 50-135...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2008
  6. JasonL

    JasonL

    385
    Sep 26, 2008
    New Jersey
    thanks

    Thanks for the replies, I think i want to stay away from a push pull unless its a fantastic deal. I might try a sigma version. Decisions descions....
     
  7. get a used copy of the sigma 70-200 hsm
     
  8. JasonL

    JasonL

    385
    Sep 26, 2008
    New Jersey
    Thanks

    are you using the sigma version? if so do you have some pics
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.