which lens? nikon 80-200 afs or sigma 70-200

jthao · 02/24/2009, 05:34 PM

which one is better bang for the buck? nikon 80-200afs (not the afd two ring version) or the sigma 70-200?? I know the nikon 70-200 is the best but it's about 2x the cost also.

thanks all.

VoidRaven · 02/26/2009, 07:45 PM

You can pick up an excellent condition used Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D for $700 (+/- $50). I've never used the Sigma so I can't comment there but I do own the Nikon 80-200 AF-D and I really like the lens. It's solid, fast focus, and produces great results. What camera body are you wanting to use it on?

I wonder what the AF-S version is selling for these days on the used market?

imcosmokramer · 02/27/2009, 09:53 PM

well, clearly the better bang for the buck is the sigma. It's about getting a better lens vs a better value. it's also a matter of whether or not YOU will actually notice the difference in your shots.

jthao · 02/27/2009, 10:21 PM

thanks you guys.
from what I've read the 80-200 afs is said to have faster focus than the older still available on the market afd version. the picture quality is about the same.

the sigma is a really nice lens and was my first choice.

The afs was hard to find used though, but luckily I saw one for sale locally and so I picked that one up. I'm very happy with it.

I tried out the sigma and the afd at a local store and they were nice too but like imcosmokramer said, I don't really think that I can actually visually see the difference in picture quality between these 3 lenses (not yet anyways).

voidraven: I'm using a nikon d300 body. I find that the afs is a little more on the used market than the afd version. but the problem is finding an afs lens for sale used.
I saw a place online (out of ny) that still has a couple brand new 80-200afs for sale. they want $1400 for it. that's probably why most people would rather buy the afd.

VoidRaven · 02/28/2009, 07:51 AM

Actually, like you mentioned in your first post, most people would rather buy the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR...like me. At some point I'm upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 VR or whatever comes out to replace it when I get ready. Until then I'm either making my next purchase a FF body (currently shoot...and LOVE...my "old" D200 body but gotta advance at some point) or the 200-400 f/4. Just gotta save up the $$$ first.

Glad you found what you wanted...happy shooting!

02/24/2009, 05:34 PM	#1
jthao Super Saiyan Join Date: May 2007 Location: NorCal Posts: 2,522	which lens? nikon 80-200 afs or sigma 70-200 which one is better bang for the buck? nikon 80-200afs (not the afd two ring version) or the sigma 70-200?? I know the nikon 70-200 is the best but it's about 2x the cost also. thanks all. __________________ Elos 160xl \| Profilux 3.1Nex ultimate \| BK DC200 \| (5)Mitras 6200s \|(4) Vortech MP40QD \| 3155 ATO \| Schuran CaRx \| Carbon-Doser \| Red Dragon return \| 500G Starphire FOWLR \| BK SM200 \| (6) Tunze 6105

02/26/2009, 07:45 PM	#2
VoidRaven 'tis himself Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: York Township, OH Posts: 1,829	You can pick up an excellent condition used Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D for $700 (+/- $50). I've never used the Sigma so I can't comment there but I do own the Nikon 80-200 AF-D and I really like the lens. It's solid, fast focus, and produces great results. What camera body are you wanting to use it on? I wonder what the AF-S version is selling for these days on the used market? __________________ "If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - The Red Green Show Current Tank Info: 24g BioCube reef

02/27/2009, 09:53 PM	#3
imcosmokramer Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cleveland, OH Posts: 1,709	well, clearly the better bang for the buck is the sigma. It's about getting a better lens vs a better value. it's also a matter of whether or not YOU will actually notice the difference in your shots. __________________ You can agree with me, or you can be wrong. You pick.

02/27/2009, 10:21 PM	#4
jthao Super Saiyan Join Date: May 2007 Location: NorCal Posts: 2,522	thanks you guys. from what I've read the 80-200 afs is said to have faster focus than the older still available on the market afd version. the picture quality is about the same. the sigma is a really nice lens and was my first choice. The afs was hard to find used though, but luckily I saw one for sale locally and so I picked that one up. I'm very happy with it. I tried out the sigma and the afd at a local store and they were nice too but like imcosmokramer said, I don't really think that I can actually visually see the difference in picture quality between these 3 lenses (not yet anyways). voidraven: I'm using a nikon d300 body. I find that the afs is a little more on the used market than the afd version. but the problem is finding an afs lens for sale used. I saw a place online (out of ny) that still has a couple brand new 80-200afs for sale. they want $1400 for it. that's probably why most people would rather buy the afd. __________________ Elos 160xl \| Profilux 3.1Nex ultimate \| BK DC200 \| (5)Mitras 6200s \|(4) Vortech MP40QD \| 3155 ATO \| Schuran CaRx \| Carbon-Doser \| Red Dragon return \| 500G Starphire FOWLR \| BK SM200 \| (6) Tunze 6105

02/28/2009, 07:51 AM	#5
VoidRaven 'tis himself Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: York Township, OH Posts: 1,829	Actually, like you mentioned in your first post, most people would rather buy the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR...like me. At some point I'm upgrading to the 70-200 2.8 VR or whatever comes out to replace it when I get ready. Until then I'm either making my next purchase a FF body (currently shoot...and LOVE...my "old" D200 body but gotta advance at some point) or the 200-400 f/4. Just gotta save up the $$$ first. Glad you found what you wanted...happy shooting! __________________ "If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - The Red Green Show Current Tank Info: 24g BioCube reef