What do you think between these 2 lenses?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by MicroChip, Nov 2, 2005.

  1. MicroChip

    MicroChip

    14
    Oct 29, 2005
    I am watching two auctions on Ebay. One is for the Nikon 70-210 AF D f/4-5.6. That's the one Ken Rockwell seems to be in love with, but was $200 new and now they go for $450ish on Ebay. The other is a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX HSM which is currently around $350ish. I figure they'll probably end around the same price range.

    This is for use on my D50. Right now I only have the 18-55mm kit lens and need something with some reach on it, that will take decent pics even at the longer end of its range, and will be a good second lens in a bag that will probably never have more than 2 lenses in it.

    I'm kind of a n00b when it comes to f's and all the 2 and 3 letter codes that the lens manufactures seem to slap on there, so any guidance would be helpful.

    Thanks!
    MC
     
  2. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    The Sigma is the better lens. You get it's up to two stops faster, which can be a huge advantage in anything but bright sunlight. It's also an HSM lens which means auto-focus will be faster.
     
  3. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  4. Never more than 2 lenses? Lens Lust Disease has a way of altering your standards... and emptying your pockets. I'll check back with you in 6 months, and see how that works out :wink:.

    Lenses have a profound effect on the results you're going to get from your new technical marvel d50. Put a bad one on, and you'll get lousy pics, put a great one one and you'll rival Ansel Adams. So most of us have learned not to skimp on glass or look for bargains. Dig deep, and you won't regret it.

    Ken Rockwell is a great read, and has some good things to say, but you have to take his advice with a few grains of salt. As a working pro, he underestimates the standards that hobbyists hold themselves to, and thinks we can get by with lesser tools. In reality, some of the more exacting work is being done by advanced hobbyists, because they have the time and motivation to shoot for the highest levels.

    When you hear lenses discussed, you'll find most people are only consider price and sharpness. Nikon usually loses based on that pair of criteria. But sharpness is only one of several important factors in rendering a good picture. Lenses need to be judged on sharpness, focusing accuracy, focusing speed, accurate color rendering, contrast, micro-contrast, build quality, brightness, and bokeh... and even with that list, I've probably left a few important things out. When you look at all of the factors, Nikon's "high" prices become a bargain!

    If you're looking for a telephoto, consider the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED. It can be bought new for about $900, and good used copies can be found for as little as $500. It's pro glass. Big, heavy and expensive. Painful to buy, but it will bring you years of joy.
     
  5. I'd agree with Paul about Nikon lenses. Even aside from quality issues, they seem to hold their used value much better than lenses from Sigma and other third party manufacturers.
     
  6. patrickh

    patrickh

    666
    May 4, 2005
    Thousand Oaks
    I would endorse Uncle Frank's comments. I have both the 70-210 and the 80-200. I use the 70-210 for walkabout if I am not really expecting to take much of note, but anything of a more serious nature calls for the 80-200, because of the radical difference in quality. The advantage of the 70-210 is that it is relatively small (relatively) and light. Quality is excellent for a consumer lens and it is capable of taking very good pictures. BUt the 80-200 is in a different league.
     
  7. MicroChip

    MicroChip

    14
    Oct 29, 2005
    Wow, so I wasn't even that close in picking a lens. A few questions...

    Not the D version, which focuses much faster supposedly, but ok, so this lens is out because I should just get something with better glass...

    I see many of this lens on KEH but it's confusing because some say Excellent Plus at $999, some say Excellent Plus at $499, there's even one listed as Excellent for $429, and then there's some that say Bargain that run from $300 and change to $500 and change. If there's one listed bargain and one listed excellent and both are $429, should I just buy the Excellent $429? And what does "loose" mean? Example:

    It's the Nikon, condition says Excellent, and it's $429.

    Thanks!
    MC
     

  8. Nikon's been making various versions of this lens for decades. You're seeing prices on different versions. The current design has two rings (one for focus and the other for zoom) and a tripod mount. That's the one I'd recommend.

    The loose comment refers to a one ring version where the lens won't hold a zoom position if it's not supported.

    I'd suggest you read the summary of the different versions in Ken Rockwell's article. Don't buy anything until you understand the differences.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
     
  9. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  10. Keaka

    Keaka

    227
    Oct 13, 2005
    Richmond BC
    I played around with the 70-210 recently, D version, and its quite sharp.. but if you could manage a Sigma 2.8 70-200 HSM I don't see why you wouldn't go for that one instead..seeing as the focusing is faster.
     
  11. I've got the 70-210 non-D and I think it's a great alternative to the D version. The only difference is the D version focuses a little bit faster and provides distance information when using a flash: d-ttl. The non-D can be had for less than $200 but has the same optics as the D version. I use it a lot for ski photography since it's so easy to carry around and there's no problem in daylight with the slower aperture. This is a very good lens but not worth more than $400 even for the D version.

    While the 70-210 takes great pictures, it won't stop LLD. I still lust over the 70-200VR almost every day.
     
  12. MicroChip

    MicroChip

    14
    Oct 29, 2005
    The 80-200 is a push-pull zoom, correct? Is it true that's not such a good idea on dslr's because it pumps dust on the sensor, or is that just hooey?

    Thanks!
    MC
     
  13. The old version is push-pull. The latest one is 2 ring.

    46564353.
     
  14. Nikon 70-210 is push-pull, Sigma is not. I've heard that the push-pull can get dust on the CCD and I've had trouble with dust but don't know if my lens has made it worse.

    BTW, if you can get a Sigma 70-200 for only $350, by all means get it, much better deal than a 70-210 for $400+!
     
  15. I'd go with the Sogma. Been reported as sharp as the Nikon 80-200 and I don't have problems believing it. Other then the anti-Sigma snobism, it is good.

    Now, with the 80-200 push-pull it's another story. I owned one and I loved it. I upgraded to the newer version and it wasn't a good move*. I gained nothing in the process. The old Push-Pull was even sharper. True Pro Glass it is.

    You can find MInt++ examples sold for cheap by lens snobs. You can end up with pro glass for cheap.
     
  16. Jarrell

    Jarrell

    Feb 13, 2005
    Macon, Ga.
    Lets not knock the Sigma too bad... :smile:
    41120074.
    Jarrell
     
  17. No fair. You could make a great picture using the bottom of a coke bottle for a lens.
     
  18. Jarrell

    Jarrell

    Feb 13, 2005
    Macon, Ga.
    I wish! :smile:
    What's that address again that I send the check too?
    In all seriousness, a person should buy the absolute best lenses they can (afford). Even if it means waiting a while to do it. It really is hard to beat Nikons top line and the great thing about it is, you'll only do it once and not have to keep trading up 'cuz you're already there.
    Jarrell
     
  19. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  20. dbirdsong

    dbirdsong Guest

    I own a couple Sigma Lens including the 70-200 F2.8 HSM EX and it is a great lens. I had the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 Push Pull and sold it for the Sigma because it focused faster, all though I prefer push pull zoom's.
    There are some great photographers here that own Sigma's...
    BTW, I have admit to being turned off by some peoples SNOBBISHNESS over none Nikon lenses. I borders on the snobbishness of canon owners... (That is not a joke either!)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Help to decide between D and G lenses Lens Lust Jul 22, 2017
What's the difference between D and G lenses? Lens Lust Oct 12, 2012
Diiference between Wide Angle & Fisheye Lenses? Lens Lust Nov 14, 2011
Can't decide between these lenses Lens Lust Apr 11, 2011
Torn between 2 lenses...50 or 35.. Input needed Lens Lust Mar 19, 2010