Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Nikon 80-200 f2.8

[MikeHoyer]

I can get hold of either of these lenses, used but in excellent condtion, for around the same price (the Nikon is a little bit more expensive I think). Which would you reccomend for trackside stuff? Cheers.

[TerryC]

Mike, think personally I'd go for the Nikon one if it's the AF-S version. But I also know the said Sigma lens (optically) is pretty good too.

[Happy Snapper]

Originally Posted by MikeHoyer

I can get hold of either of these lenses, used but in excellent condtion, for around the same price (the Nikon is a little bit more expensive I think). Which would you reccomend for trackside stuff? Cheers.

I have had three of the Nikon versions over the years the last one is about two years old its a good lens have done lots of wet races with no ill effects! Nice to use if I see you at Silverstone or Brands this weekend you can borrow and use it for a while see what you think?

[RobertPrange]

Mike , the Sigma lens is very good , i did never regret that i bought it. However i will probably trade it in for the 50-500 since i am not too happy with the focal lenght and an additional lens is not within the budget.

So if your interested , its in very good condition You should have let me known that your interested at the Ring , i would have let you try it for an hour or two

[Pigit]

Mike i have the Sigma lens have a look here for some sample images.
www.pgtmotorsport.co.uk

[rdjones]

One of my workmates has the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, for his D70, which he also uses for motorsport and I have had go with it and I have to say I was quite impressed.

[David L]

IMHO you would be well advised to try and find a Nikon 70-200 VR as they are the ballons.. Very sharp and the VR may just have enough uses to warrant it's inclusion...

Watch out for sticky stop-down mechanisms if you buy s/h, can be costly to repair.. The symptom is that the lens stays wide open when you shoot as the aperture blades stick at full aperture.. If you flick the stop down lever up when the lens is off the camera you can get wonky ones to stick open..

I had a Sigma HSM 70-200 before, and whilst it was a great lens, the Nikon glass is better, no doubt..

[Pigit]

Lovley pics on your site Dave.

[David L]

Originally Posted by Pigit

Lovley pics on your site Dave.

Thanks very much.. I ought to update the flipping thing sometime..

I think the shots are all 2002/2003.. Hey, at least my schedule is only a year out of date..!!

For those interested in seeing more recent work (i.e. the last few years), sportcarpros would be the place to visit..

[djb]

I'd second the Nikon referal, I've been very happy with my 80-200 2.8, even with the D2X now. If the difference in price is relatively small, it's certainly a lens that will stand up to years of use if not overly abused.

Ideally though for you would be to able to take similiaar shots with both lenses to properly compare. Do some shots where flare would be a distinct possiblility to show up differences (although, its a tricky situation with slight camera angle differences producing flare or no flare depending on slight camera position changes, same with the filter on it, ie quality, dirty etc-when dealing with flare etc I mean) But you know what i mean, you can only properly compare similiar shots with each lens. Oh, and usually a more expensive lens will be better wide open (or thereabouts) than one that is a good chunk cheaper.

[MikeHoyer]

You always suggest I buy something more expensive David...

Should be able to test the Nikon this week sometime hopefully though, I'll probably go for that unless there is something seriously wrong with it.

[djb]

I haven't used the Sigma so I really can't make a judgement on it. When I borrowed a Sigma 500 4.5, the build quality seemed right up there so I guess you should at least go with the "feeling in hand" aspect too. There's got to be some online reviews etc that probably compare it to Nikon and other brands as well, and being a 2.8, I'm sure that its no slouch, I guess it depends on what sort of difference in price there is. As for used lenses, I have bought umpteen used lenses over the years (although all except a few were manual focus) but if a good clean lens looks and feels right (get to know what a new one feels and sounds like before hand) the advantage with digital is that one can take shots and quickly check if the thing focuses accurately (200@2.8 is good for that) etc etc. Good luck searching etc, theres nothing wrong with buying second hand, you just gotta be picky and observant and bullheaded about often a too high asking price compared to new.

[David L]

Originally Posted by MikeHoyer

You always suggest I buy something more expensive David...

Point taken.. However, I wouldn't have thought that the 70-200 Nikon would be that much more than the 80-200 that it replaced, certianly the VR would be worth any difference and it may very well be worth a search..? That's all I meant..

[James North]

Originally Posted by RobertPrange

Mike , the Sigma lens is very good , i did never regret that i bought it. However i will probably trade it in for the 50-500 since i am not too happy with the focal lenght and an additional lens is not within the budget.

So if your interested , its in very good condition You should have let me known that your interested at the Ring , i would have let you try it for an hour or two

Perhapps you'd be better off getting a teleconvertor rather than going the whole hog and replacing the lens. It would cost less and a 70-200 converted into a 140-400mm would still have a lower minimun aperature than the 50-500.

[Emotive Images]

Perhapps you'd be better off getting a teleconvertor rather than going the whole hog and replacing the lens. It would cost less and a 70-200 converted into a 140-400mm would still have a lower minimun aperature than the 50-500.

I just went down this route, i.e. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter, and was impressed with the hardly noticable reduction in speed and performance. I got the teleconverter specifically for the F1 testing in Silverstone last week and used it again for the British GT championship last weekend.

I've been shooting with the 70-200mm for 18 months and love it to bits. It's fast focusing and really sharp. Flare hasn't been a problem and headlights, etc, produce beautiful 8-pointed stars without any filter.

The only thing this combo doesn't have is VR. I would see that as a valuable thing to have and wish I had it myself, but I have also been hand holding this setup down to 1/250th.

There are some samples below. I've included a heavily backlit shot so you can see how the lens handled it.

-Mark.
http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/F...SC_0501?full=1
http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/F...SC_9890?full=1
http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/F..._Alonso?full=1

http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...SC_1228?full=1
http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...SC_1215?full=1
http://emotiveimages.com/eigallery/B...SC_1116?full=1

[MikeHoyer]

Originally Posted by David L

Point taken.. However, I wouldn't have thought that the 70-200 Nikon would be that much more than the 80-200 that it replaced, certianly the VR would be worth any difference and it may very well be worth a search..? That's all I meant..

That's true, I'll have a look to see what's on offer.

[RobertPrange]

Originally Posted by James North

Perhapps you'd be better off getting a teleconvertor rather than going the whole hog and replacing the lens. It would cost less and a 70-200 converted into a 140-400mm would still have a lower minimun aperature than the 50-500.

Thanks , havent even thought about this!

Mark , your photos look great , i´ll probably get the 2x converter now

[James North]

Exactly.

I had planned to take a x2 convertor to the silverstone test. Unfortuately for me the place I ordered it from were out of stock, and then canceled my order.

So I relied on my 50-500mm and was lucky to have good light, and so still got very good quality from it. I would have liked to have seen what I could have got from a 400 at 5.6 though like Mark.

I do think it makes sense to keep the 70-200 f2.8 rather than trade it in.

[MikeHoyer]

Got the Nikon today, looks great, feels really solid. I'll try some test shots tomorrow.

[MikeHoyer]

http://www.mdh-photography.co.uk/lenses.jpg

Goes well with my existing setup I think. Funny that the little one also zooms to 200mm...