Which zoom lens

[_dobbo_]

ok so I've had enough of my Sigma 70-300 cos I just can't get on with it, it's just too slow and hunts too much.

As such I've been looking around at what's out there for a bit more folding and has a reputation for nice fast focus speed...

I think I've narrowed it down to either;

Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D (approx £815 UK, much less on ebay)

Sigma APO 70-200mm 70-200 f2.8 EX AF HSM (£659 uk with a 1.4x converter, less on ebay)

So the question is, does anyone have either of these, and if so any comments on them? There seems to be some doubt about the sharpness of the Sigma at f2.8 but to be honest apart from that I see no reason to spend 200 more on the nikon...

edit to add

also the Nikoor 80-200 appears to be discontinued, and I can't see a replacement anywhere in the range at that level, as next in line has VR and is plenty more money... Anyone know why it's discontinued?


>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Wednesday 11th May 18:47

[406]

Why not go for the Nikor 80-400 VR lens. Found this on ebay, thinking of getting one of these for myself.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30035&item=7513031498&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Dave

[fergusd]

Not sure if it's the same, but I have a Nikkor 80-200 ED AF-S 2.8 . . . same thing ? . . . too many acronyms . . .

Anyways if it is I find it a fantastic lens, although it is large and heavy . . .

Focus is very fast, it can be restricted to 2.5m->infinity too which means if it does hunt (which it basically never does) it hunts over a restricted range so does it quickly . . .

I've been using it for various things, but basically trying to learn some motorsports photography skills . . .

As an example, I took this the other night (dupe of other thread), image is straight from the camera, no photoshoppery, D70 . . . I tracked the guy down from 130mph on a straight with the cam in AF-C focus mode into the corner you see here . . . and just kinda prodded the shutter button here and there . . . every frame I took was nicely in focus . . .



1/760th f6.7 200mm says the exif stuff . . .

100% here

Fd

[_dobbo_]

406 said:

Why not go for the Nikor 80-400 VR lens. Found this on ebay, thinking of getting one of these for myself. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30035&item=7513031498&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW Dave

Dunno really, I think it's the f5.6 at 400mm - even with VR I worry about me being Mr shakey... And 400mm is LOOOONG when you take into account the 1.5x factor.

However looking at that price I might have to rethink, as I didn't know they were available that cheap.

However I would need to buy a new bag as well, since it wont fit mine!

[_dobbo_]

fergusd said:

Not sure if it's the same, but I have a Nikkor 80-200 ED AF-S 2.8 . . . same thing ? . . . too many acronyms . . .

Yep think that's the one. Read some reviews on fred miranda and it does score very highly, but then so does the sigma. and now there's the 80-400 in the mix, decisions decisions!

[beano500]

_dobbo_ said:

406 said: Why not go for the Nikor 80-400 VR lens. Found this on ebay, thinking of getting one of these for myself. <a [link cut out] Dave Dunno really, I think it's the f5.6 at 400mm - even with VR I worry about me being Mr shakey... And 400mm is LOOOONG when you take into account the 1.5x factor. However looking at that price I might have to rethink, as I didn't know they were available that cheap. However I would need to buy a new bag as well, since it wont fit mine!

I handled the 80-400VR the other day - it's reasonably impressive*, but not in the same league as one of the F2.8s (either 80-200 or 70-200 ) and with the 2.8 you could add a TC later on.....


*But obviously go and handle one and make up your own mind...

>> Edited by beano500 on Wednesday 11th May 19:39

[simpo two]

_dobbo_ said:

I think I've narrowed it down to either; Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D (approx £815 UK, much less on ebay) Sigma APO 70-200mm 70-200 f2.8 EX AF HSM (£659 uk with a 1.4x converter, less on ebay)

I recently tooled up with the Sigma, mint second-hand from eBay for £350 (thanks to Hank Scorpio for spotting it). I simply couldn't justify the massive extra for the Nikkor.
The 70-200 is a heavy bugger but does impress. The HSM focusing is excellent, working down to very low light levels. Very well built too. The tripod collar is also very well made and looks cool but makes the lens less comfortable to use off-tripod, but it's easy to remove.
My only complaint regards the case - it doesn't grip the lens very well and doesn't come with a strap, which seems a daft oversight on a lens this expensive.

[HankScorpio]

I've got a strap somewhere if you want one John, mine had one

I've got the same 70-200 as John with the 1.4x and the 2x TC and I like it a lot.

Loads of examples on my site and all the recent trackday pics on there were taken with some combo of those.

[simpo two]

HankScorpio said:

I've got a strap somewhere if you want one John, mine had one

Cheers Hank, I'm using a dog lead at present! Address coming over by PM.

[CVP]

I have the 80-400 VR and use it a lot for travel and wildlife photography. It is quite heavy in the hand but the VR really does work. However the f5.6 maximum aperture at 400mm is a bit restricting and the focus seems agonisingly slow compared to my 300 AFS, but the 400mm maximum focal length is quite handy. Overall I'm happy with it but as soon as it gets the FAS motor my old one will be for sale.

Sounds like if you can find a second hand 80-200 f2.8 AFS it would be the optimal solution for you.

Chris

[-DeaDLocK-]

Ben I've got the Nikkor 70-200 VR and though a bit of a stretch money-wise, it is an absolutely fantastic bit of kit.

If you're local I'd be very happy to lend it to you for a few days for a play (don't worry about breaking it etc. as it's all fully insured and I'm a nice guy).

If the Sigma version is anywhere near as good as the Nikon, I'd say go for that.

[-DeaDLocK-]

_dobbo_ said:

also the Nikoor 80-200 appears to be discontinued, and I can't see a replacement anywhere in the range at that level, as next in line has VR and is plenty more money... Anyone know why it's discontinued?

Redundant since the 70-200 VR came out. MUCH better lens BTW (albeit pricier).

[_dobbo_]

But that was sort of my point - it's not really redundant since the VR is 50% more expensive. Where's the lens at that price point now? It's gone, I suppose cos Nikon want to force buyers up to the VR.