saving up for new lens!

[Erad]

so im saving up for a new lens and theres 3 lenses im looking at. i need to know your opinion on these 3 lenses.

80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor

70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro-Sigma

AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus

ive read really good reviews on the nikkor 80-200mm. if anyone owns any of these lenses please let me know your opinion and if you can please post a photo from any of those lenses.

[Erad]

i really dont wanna spend $1700 for a lens but if i have to i will, i would really like to spend alot less, i know that sigma 70-200 is running around $850 and the nikkor 80-200 is running $1000.

[Stoller]

I'm very happy with my Sigma 70-200, great lens for the price.

[jcon]

If you really did some looking you will see the Sigma and the Nikkor are only $50-$100 difference(US dollar:D) The VR one is very expensive. There really isnt much of a difference(that I can see anyway) between the Sigma and Nikkor.

[Rex914]

Bottom line is that all 3 lenses are good. It comes down to whether you want VR or not, and only you can decide that.

Now, if you don't need VR, I would wait for Nikon to issue rebates (in a month or so), and you'd probably see the $100 rebate on the already fairly low-priced 80-200, bringing it to $800, the same price as the Sigma. Although I haven't actually seen a Sigma vs. Nikon comparison, if I were offered both at the same price, I'd take the first party over the third party lens. :)

[TNB]

I purchased the Nikon VR lens while the rebate was offered. I wanted it for action shots in low light situations. There are also some "night" photos on my website that I took without a tripod while ontop of the Stratosphere Tower.

[Erad]

i think i made up my mind, i just fell in love wit the sigma 70-200mm, read great reviews on it, and photos looks amazing from that lens.

[tekriter]

i think i made up my mind, i just fell in love wit the sigma 70-200mm, read great reviews on it, and photos looks amazing from that lens.

Try Sigma4Less.com for a good price, and remember that in the last two years there have been three different versions of this lens.

The current version focuses down to 39 inches or so, the older versions down to seven feet if I remember right.

[rawpaw18]

Try Sigma4Less.com for a good price.

Keep in mind that their warranty is 1 year, vs. say B&H which offers 1 year world ,plus 3 year USA.

[Erad]

i walked into calumet photographic today and tested out the sigma 70-200mm. i loved it so much, here are some test shots.

[tekriter]

Keep in mind that their warranty is 1 year, vs. say B&H which offers 1 year world ,plus 3 year USA.


I didn't notice that - thanks for pointing that out. I'm still kinda leaning toward the Nikkor 80-200 2.8 though, partially because of potential resale value.

[rawpaw18]

ERAD,

I have been doing the same research for sometime. I thought I was sold on the Sigma when it came out but have been looking now at the Nikon. The D you mentioned. costs a little more than the Sigma.

Cons of the Nikon, no hood included, no afs and often sold without the tripod collar. Also quite a few reports of ghosting by reviewers.
This may not be a factor, but Nikon tc's can only be used on the af-s version. Hard to find and cost more.
I worry about it being fast enough on my D50, non afs, when shooting kids sports.

Sigma has yet to put up a mtf chart on the new version of their lens.:confused:

There are a number of pictures on pbase to show the new Sigma lens if you have not seen them.

[rawpaw18]

The wedding photos on pbase were taken with a very slow shutter speed???
1/15, 1/10 so it is hard to tell what they could of looked like.

[tekriter]

ERAD,

I have been doing the same research for sometime. I thought I was sold on the Sigma when it came out but have been looking now at the Nikon. The D you mentioned. costs a little more than the Sigma.

Cons of the Nikon, no hood included, no afs and often sold without the tripod collar. Also quite a few reports of ghosting by reviewers.
This may not be a factor, but Nikon tc's can only be used on the af-s version. Hard to find and cost more.
I worry about it being fast enough on my D50, non afs, when shooting kids sports.

Sigma has yet to put up a mtf chart on the new version of their lens.:confused:

There are a number of pictures on pbase to show the new Sigma lens if you have not seen them.

When you talk about the af-s version of the Nikon, which one is that? Has it been discontinued? Or, are you referring to the VR version?

[rawpaw18]

See Ken Rockwells site for the differences. The vr is a 70-200 lens. The af-d is the one easier to find, BH has it for $920 US but the af-s roughly $1400 if you can find one, it is faster to focus and not a screw drive lens like the d version which seems to exhibit some torque when focusing.

I have not shot with any of these lenses and have been up in the air about which to buy for quite some time now. Only passing along what I have read.

[rawpaw18]

Kens breakdown, very helpful.

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

[tekriter]

Well, I just took the plunge...

ordered the Nikon 80-200 AF-D 2.8, should have it in time for Friday night football.

[rawpaw18]

Well, I just took the plunge...

ordered the Nikon 80-200 AF-D 2.8, should have it in time for Friday night football.

Sweeet!
Keep us posted, I would definitely like to hear and see how well it works for you.

[wh0128]

yeah i would also like to hear how well this lens turns out. I am looking for a fast lens but not as expensive as the 70-200VR. I am looking towards the sigma because of the cost. Could anyone tell me how much difference there is in image quality between the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 2.8 Af-D?

[rawpaw18]

yeah i would also like to hear how well this lens turns out. I am looking for a fast lens but not as expensive as the 70-200VR. I am looking towards the sigma because of the cost. Could anyone tell me how much difference there is in image quality between the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and the Nikon 80-200 2.8 Af-D?

The image quality should be close between these two, with the edge given to the Nikon, from what I have read. The newer Sigma, with macro, has been reported to be a little soft at the 200 end. BH has one in the used dept. already. The big difference is that the Sigma has HSM and this Nikon is not AF-S.

[tekriter]

OK, I've had the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D for a couple of weeks now, and remember I don't have nor have ever used the Sigma in any of it's comparable forms.

That being said,

THIS LENS IS THE BEST FREAKING $900 I EVER SPENT.

There.

I've used this lens in some demanding conditions, shooting Friday night football with no flash at some fields with, let's say, "variable" lighting conditions. The sharpness of this lens, even wide open is amazing. Of course, this is the first true "pro" piece of glass I've ever owned.

Using a monopod, I've been able to shoot at night at around 1/200th to as much as 1/500th depending on the lighting conditions at the field.

What I haven't done as yet is shoot much in daylight. I have done one daytime football game for my grandson's team, perhaps later today or tonight I'll get some of those pictures posted to Photobucket and show them here.

Plus, this thing is HEAVY. I've tried handholding it for a while, even carting it around on a neck strap and it's a handful to say the least. It has made me wonder if the lens mount and chassis on the D50 is strong enough to hold it without deforming the front of the camera body. Does anyone know if the D50 has a metal skeleton underneath?

[tekriter]

OK - here's three pictures from my grandson's football game, using the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/Jordan3.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/Jordan2.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/Jordan1.jpg

[rawpaw18]

TEKRITER

Those shots look really good. How do you find the speed of focus and how does it feel while it is focusing? Does the torque of the screw drive move the camera? It seems that it does not, because your shots come out plenty sharp.

If you do not mind if you could post a couple of the night shots you took?

[tekriter]

I must say that the focus feels a tad slow. Not a usually problem when you are shooting single shots, but if you are doing bursts of three or four frames it seems like the focus can't keep up with a moving target. But I don't know if that's a lens problem or a photographer problem yet. In a situation where I lock on a running back, for instance, and follow him for a group of shots sometimes the last one is out of focus just a bit. Another problem is a technique thing for sure - using the single focus spot set to center, if the subject moves fast enough, the camera focuses on something else instead, because my main sublect is now in the side of the frame, not the center. So that may be at the root of the burst problems. I just haven't shot enough with it yet.

I have my D50 set for AF-C, or continuous autofocus. The daytime shots were in the 1/2000th to 1/4000th range for shutter speed - I really coulda used an ISO 50 setting!! Shooting wide open at ISO 200 (to throw the background out of focus) meant that in some cases my shutter speed of 1/4000th wasn't enough. So I had to stop down occaisionally to avoid overexposure. Maybe I need a 77mm 2-stop ND filter.

You can definitely feel the mechanism moving when the lens focuses. Since I don't hand hold it much, it's not really a problem. But if you have gotten used to the HSM equipped lenses, it's definitely different.

This evening I'll post some of the better night football shots. I was having an upload problem with Photobucket that I still wasn't sure I had figured out until this morning.

[wh0128]

rawpaw, do you know if the sigma is a bit faster than the 80-200? And other than the slight difference in image quality, what would be some of your guys' choices for these two lenses? I am thinking about getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 because of the capability of low lighting, and also maybe the HSM over the non AF-S. Though if for the Nikon you can get 1/200 or 1/500 shutterspeeds then I'm sure the Sigma could do the same and cost a little less.

Also rawpaw, what exactly is the difference between AF-S and AF-D?

This topic is quite nice because I have a d50 also and now know that either of these two lenses would work just fine on my body.

Is there a chance about the mounting?

[tekriter]

The low light capabilities of the Sigma should be exactly the same as the Nikkor. I went with the Nikkor because the price diferential at B&H Photo was only $30 if you compared the newest Sigma ($889) to the Nikkor ($919).

If it ever came time to resell the lens, the Nikkor should have more resale value, and I bought this lens thinking that I might end up with the 70-200 VR someday, with the 80-200 going up for sale.

[rawpaw18]

rawpaw, do you know if the sigma is a bit faster than the 80-200? And other than the slight difference in image quality, what would be some of your guys' choices for these two lenses? I am thinking about getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 because of the capability of low lighting, and also maybe the HSM over the non AF-S. Though if for the Nikon you can get 1/200 or 1/500 shutterspeeds then I'm sure the Sigma could do the same and cost a little less.

Also rawpaw, what exactly is the difference between AF-S and AF-D?

This topic is quite nice because I have a d50 also and now know that either of these two lenses would work just fine on my body.

Is there a chance about the mounting?

Here is the link about the different Nikons

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

The HSM of the Sigma has an internal motor in the lens, where as the Nikon "D" relies on the camera's motor to turn a screw-drive driven lens. I have not used either of these lenses, but those facts should make the Sigma faster to focus, quieter, and be more staedy when focusing because of less torque that the "D" model seems to exhibit.

The AF-S has a motor in the lens the AF-D does not, the "S' appears to have been replaced by the VR, which also has an ineternal motor. The "D" is readily available and the "S" is tough to find and close in price to the VR.

I am not sure I follow what your shutter speed statement means, these lenses being 2.8's, should all achieve the same speeds for your needs.

[wh0128]

thanks for the link and info rawpaw and tekriter. it'll be usefull.

Just disregard my statement about shutterspeed. I don't know what I was thinking, lol

[tekriter]

Sorry for procrastinating, I finally uploaded some night football shots to Photobucket this morning:

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/DB-56.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/DB-79.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/DB-101.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b211/tekriter/football/DB-108.jpg

The light was really good at this field. All shots are with my Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D.

[rawpaw18]

Sorry for procrastinating, I finally uploaded some night football shots to Photobucket this morning:


The light was really good at this field. All shots are with my Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF-D.


Like you have nothing better to do than indulge me.:rolleyes:

Thanks for taking the time,I appreciate the shots.
The shots and the lens are impressive. Thanks again

[wh0128]

thanks alot tekriter, the nighttime football shots are really good and sharp. This is the type of shooting I will be doing so this gives me a really good perspective on how a 2.8 will perform in the condition I am shooting in. I think I might go along and get the 80-200 2.8 from BH. This thread has convinced me, and plus, if I saved up enough money I can resell this lens and use that money to get the 70-200vr 2.8 (hopefully).

[wh0128]

So I just ordered the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D, and it should arrive where I live from B&H on Thursday or Friday. I'll try and post some photos of my first pictures with the lens. Reading this article, I had spent along time looking around at different fast zoom lenses, and this one just appeals to me more than the Sigma 80-200 2.8, and less expensive that the 70-200VR, and the 80-200 AF-S. Thanks everyone for the input on this lens. I know I won't be disappointed.

[rawpaw18]

I think that is a great choice, enjoy.

There is a little lens envy over here on the east coast though.:(

[Erad]

that nikon 80-200 2.8 is an amazing lens, i rented it from calumet photographic one weekend to shoot a pop warner football game that my little cousins play in. i love the lens very much and its built is incredible, very fast lens, very heavy. i still kinda have my mind set on the sigma 70-200 2.8 though, i tested the lens out at calumet also, and i just loved the feel of it, and the focus was incredibly fast. ill most likely have the sigma 70-200 somewhere around december.
here are some photos i shot with the nikon 80-200.

[Erad]

heres another one.

[Erad]

and this one is my favorite.

[wh0128]

unfortunately, I read the bulletin on B&H wrong, and won't recieve my lens until wednesday as it is closed until Sunday the 15th of October, lol, I must have spaced out. But Erad, those pictures look spectacular. I will be doing some volunteer sports photography for my former highschool art teacher for their yearbook. I'm glad to know that I will get sharp, clear images. I am not too worried about the weight, because I have a monopod, and can also use a tri-pod which won't bother me.

[tekriter]

The only problem I have had in shooting football with a monopod is that the pod slows your movements down a bit. If I'm on the sidelines, focused on the quarterback, and the play is going to be a pass to the near sidelines it's hard to spin the rig around enough to get a shot of the catch. You end up revolving around the monopod while the play happens, and I've not had much luck making myself faster yet.

One solution would be to go handheld only, but I'm shooting at night at some poorly lit fields. Near the end zones at my home field I'm shooting at 1/60th or 1/100th at best.

[wh0128]

The only problem I have had in shooting football with a monopod is that the pod slows your movements down a bit. If I'm on the sidelines, focused on the quarterback, and the play is going to be a pass to the near sidelines it's hard to spin the rig around enough to get a shot of the catch. You end up revolving around the monopod while the play happens, and I've not had much luck making myself faster yet.

One solution would be to go handheld only, but I'm shooting at night at some poorly lit fields. Near the end zones at my home field I'm shooting at 1/60th or 1/100th at best.

Yeah I get what your saying, is it because of the weight of the lens? Or is it just the monopod use?

Also, when I was using my former art teachers cheap Quantaray 70-300 f/4, and I set my camera on auto with flash, I could get shots at 1/60th but I couldn't get any action shots because it was just too slow, and I wasn't on the sidelines during one game. Though I think the field that I am shooting on has a sufficient amount of light being shed on it, so this 2.8 will be or should be a HUGE improvement to my night photography.

Here is a picture of the field and the size of lights that they use:http://www.tricitysra.org/images/Lampson.JPG
And here is another image during the game where I was shooting from the stands with a 70-300 f/4-5.6, at f/5.3 1/60th, ISO1600:http://static.flickr.com/94/268180536_f06d2bc97f.jpg

[wh0128]

I just recieved my 80-200 f.2.8 and man does it weigh that full 3lbs!! I don't mind it being that heavy, as I'll have a mono pod connected while I'm shooting. I'll have some night football shots up on friday to see what yuh guys think.

[wh0128]

Here are some night football shots I took, they are a little noisy because I had to use ISO 800/1600.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e374/who128/DSC_1470.jpghttp://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e374/who128/DSC_1369.jpg
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e374/who128/DSC_1366.jpg

[rawpaw18]

wh0128

I know you did not ask for edits, so I will take it down if you would like. imo, Two looked a little on the dark side, so I ran it through auto levels and got this. Hope you don't mind. You did a nice job of capturing the action.

16678

[wh0128]

yeah thanks rawpaw, I didn't put it through photoshop because that was just the jpeg I loaded on to photobucket, but don't like to do auto levels, but I like what you did, and I appreciate the comment. I do need a flash though so I can lighten up my images. Most of my images were taken 1/250 or 1/350 f/2.8 with flash. I also shot in RAW so I will have more flexibility when it comes to changing the levels. This was my first shooting with my new lens and I absolutely love it!! Thank you everyone who posted their opinion toward the 80-200 f/2.8

[Erad]

ive been having second thoughts on getting one of these 2 lens'. im really getting into portraits and weddings. my wife has a co-worker that does professional wedding photography on the side and said that she could use some help and have me go out to weddings with her and her husband. now im looking for a good lens for wedding photography, ive been looking at the sigma 24-70mm F2.8. anyone have any experience on this lens? what do u guys think of this lens? is there another lens i should put in mind on getting for wedding photography, my budget is about 400 bux US.

[wh0128]

Hmm well Erad, I guess it depends if you're looking for third party or Nikon. So of course your going to want a wide zoom so you can have multiple focal lengths in one lens. Most Nikon portrait lenses seem to be way over your budget. If though you want fixed lenses, I've heard the 60mm prime 2.8 is a really nice lens for portraiture and weddings. 85mm is also a good fixed lens for portraits, but the crop factor for dslr's would make it approx. 127mm, if you were to get an 85mm I have heard that for weddings you need a fast lens, and the 85 comes in a 1.8 and 1.4, the 1.4 being $1024 being way over budget. For $469 at B&H you can buy a 17-35 f/3.5-5.6, but added shipping it'd be around $480. Sigma has either a 28-60 constant 2.8 for $399 or the 28-70 constant 2.8 for $329 and those focal lengths and aperture would work well in the portraits and wedding situations. I have no clue on how well these two Sigma lenses are, but I'm guessing for the extra 70 dollars on the other lens you might get a little better image quality. I personally would go with what you're saying which is the 28-70, because you get that extra 10mm for $70 less.

Too bad you won't be getting the 80-200 2.8, maybe later on down the road you will consider this lens, because it is inexpensive compared to the VR 70-200 2.8, but is still considered a PROFESSIONAL grade lens.

[rawpaw18]

Erad,
Looking At your signature, I do not see an external flash. Sb600/800 would be a very valuable piece of equipment to have for wedding photography.
If you find your Quantaray acceptable, why duplicate your range. Just looking for faster sharper glass?
If you are on a $400 budget, Nikons 18-55 kit lens for something wider and
sb600 flash for about $340. I know it is not fast glass, it is inexpensive,
but it does produce some nice images and the wide side would be helpful for some shots at the wedding.
I could be way off in my logic but I think you will need light.

Consider this when purchasing good glass to be part of your future kit.
What total range do I want to cover and how do I want to cover it. This way when you purchase something expensive, it will fit in you overall plan.
Here is a couple of methods to consider. This is what I have been considering.

1) 2 lenses +tc 18-50 2.8, .......50-150 2.8, .......telecoverter for additional reach
2) 3 lenses .......12-24 4, .......24/28-70 2.8, ....70-200 2.8

[wh0128]

I like your logic rawpaw on the 3 lens setup, but that setup is very expensive. I agree with rawpaw also because of the mentioning of a flash. I know that weddings aren't very bright in churches (depending on church), and so that extra light will help alot with a slow lens. If the wedding is not inside, but outside on a sunny bright day, your setup Erad looks fine to me, and I don't know why you would get another lens. I think the 18-55 would work really well in image quality and in somewhat low light, but you have to remember at 18 the f/stop is 3.5 and at 55 the f/stop is 5.6, so you only have the widest opening at the widest angle of view, which isn't very usefull when you want to zoom in. And for a portrait lens at f/5.6 your background won't be as blurred as if you were shooting with an f/2.8.

Maybe go try some of these lenses out at a local camera store and take pictures from your camera on your own card to take home and compare image quality/sharpness, and see if you'd rather have a lens and a flash for 400$ or a one fast lens to compensate for the flash you could buy.

[tcadwall]

If the wedding is not inside, but outside on a sunny bright day, your setup Erad looks fine to me
Still don't forget you need the flash outdoors too. On bright sunny days, I have found a fill flash invaluable. In mind, I have a pic of Kerri Underwood during a day-time outdoor concert. I was about 15' from the stage. Sun was high, and the SB-600 filled in the shadows on her face VERY nicely, and after a few shots, also invoked a wave from the subject.:cool:

[wh0128]

Still don't forget you need the flash outdoors too. On bright sunny days, I have found a fill flash invaluable. In mind, I have a pic of Kerri Underwood during a day-time outdoor concert. I was about 15' from the stage. Sun was high, and the SB-600 filled in the shadows on her face VERY nicely, and after a few shots, also invoked a wave from the subject.:cool:

Thank you for correcting my mistake tcadwall, I totally forgot about the harsh shadows that direct lighting can make on faces. So after this correction, I am changing my decision to go along with either sb600 or sb800(has a rebate).