# Wedding Photography - sigma 70-200 or nikon 80-200



## Lyncca (Jun 8, 2009)

I've looked up reviews and they seem pretty mixed.  What do you wedding photographers on here think?

I would LOVE the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (who wouldn't), but $1800 is just not a possibility right now since I am getting equipment and experience as tag-alongs and second shooting (which I need this lens for) before really making much money.  I don't have a need for this lens when shooting kiddos and families, so it isn't anything I needed before.

Is there really THAT much difference in the Nikon dream lens and these others?  If you really couldn't have one which of the alternatives would you go for? 

Also, on cropped sensor, is there much difference in the 70 to 80 mm?  I find that when I use my 70-300mm junk lens, that I'm either completely at one end and trying to back up to get a shot in the small side, or completely to the long end, so the 10mm difference worries me a little (mostly used at the zoo, so I will sell this after getting the 70-200).

I also need to get a full frame (refuse to buy any more cropped for the future), fast, low-mid zoom, so any money I can save to go towards that would make me happy; but I don't want to sacrifice extreme quality either. Right now I am surviving on primes, but it isn't very convenient when you need a little more zoom and you can't move into the middle of the aisle 

Sorry for rambling, just trying to provide as much info as possible so I don't get the obvious questions of "whats it for?" "whats your budget?".  LOL


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 8, 2009)

Why buy a lower end lens than you want?
I learned from experence the higher end glass will pay for itself and should you decide you don't want to keep it, it has a much better resale.

If you purchase a lens that will get you by and then you want to upgrade you will take a much larger hit on the resale of a Sigma than a Nikon Lens.


----------



## Montana (Jun 8, 2009)

I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use.  The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO.  My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 8, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> Why buy a lower end lens than you want?
> I learned from experence the higher end glass will pay for itself and should you decide you don't want to keep it, it has a much better resale.
> 
> If you purchase a lens that will get you by and then you want to upgrade you will take a much larger hit on the resale of a Sigma than a Nikon Lens.


 
Well, I don't WANT to, but I also don't want to wait 6 mths when I could be at least a second shooter for a wedding during that time with a lens in that range.  Otherwise, sitting duck for a long time or renting.  Renting at $200 a weekend or whatever doesn't seem very logical either since I'm not currently getting paid to go in the first place, and when I become a second it probably won't be that much to start with.  That seems like completely throwing away money multiple times. 

It did occur to me though that I have a shoot thats pretty definite at the end of the month that would buy one of these alternates (which is what I was going to do), but I could then also sell my 70-300 VR, which should get me close enough to pitch in just a bit of my own money (but then I am starting all over on the low-mid range zooms.



Montana said:


> I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use. The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO. My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.


 
I am not fullframe yet, but I don't want to invest further in cropped sensor since I figure one day I will make the plunge and don't want to be completely screwed on my lenses.

When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?


----------



## Dao (Jun 8, 2009)

From the review I read the other day, for cropped sensor body, the Sigma is fine.  But when it is mounted on a full frame sensor body, the corner is very soft.

The review I read compare the Sigma, Tamron and Canon L (all are 70-200mm F/2.8), image quality for full frame, the Tamron is on par with the Canon version.  In some test, it is even better (slightly) than the Canon L.  But the draw back on Tamron are slower focus speed and build quality is not as good as others.

Sorry, I do not know too much about the 80-200mm F/2.8 Nikon lens, from what I read here, it is a great lens.



The review I read regarding the 70-200mm fast zoom lens.

Juza Nature Photography


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 8, 2009)

One other alternative would be to sell you 18-200 as well.
If you have the 18-70 and then the 70-200 you are covered.
Plus it gets one more DX lens out of your bag and replaces it with a great lens.

I have used the Nikon 80-200 and I much prefer the 70-200VR


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 8, 2009)

If you are going to be in business then you have to look at this from an economic stand point. Period


Will the Sigma give you the IQ you need to conduct your business in the near term?  Of course it will if you're half the photographer you appear to be.

Can you afford to operate in the red for as many months as the difference between the lenses will put you there?  Is there any other piece of equipment that you have to have as well that you couldn't afford if you went with the Nikon?

Buying the best only works if you can afford it now or can wait for it.  If it's a matter of putting food on the table (an extreme example I know but there you are) then you can't afford it now nor can you wait.

You should be setting aside a percentage for equipment replacement/upgrades anyway, double up on that if you like- just don't rob the taxman to buy equipment!

Good luck


----------



## Garbz (Jun 8, 2009)

Lyncca said:


> When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?



The Nikon. This dream lens is far from a dream when used on a film body or full frame camera. Online forums are full of stories of people who have "upgraded" to the older Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 

Btw I have used the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8 D for several weddings. The build quality and image quality are exceptional, and with a decent camera body it focuses very fast too. The only benefit the 70-200 has is VR and the bundled lens hood is better. But the 80-200 is lighter too.


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 9, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Lyncca said:
> 
> 
> > When you say the 70-200 is too soft, do you mean the Sigma or Nikon?
> ...



Are the rumors of soft edges only reported on full frame bodies? Or on DX as well?


----------



## Garbz (Jun 9, 2009)

Full Frame only, and edge / corner sharpness is the only place it's lacking. On DX bodies you could not tell the the 70-200 from the 80-200. Both look tac sharp.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 9, 2009)

SpeedTrap said:


> One other alternative would be to sell you 18-200 as well.
> If you have the 18-70 and then the 70-200 you are covered.
> Plus it gets one more DX lens out of your bag and replaces it with a great lens.
> 
> I have used the Nikon 80-200 and I much prefer the 70-200VR


 
I just can't part with the 18-200 right now.  I will be keeping my D300, so it will continue to work with that.  I just can't beat it for a walk-around/vacation type lens, when I can't stop and change out my lenses every 2 minutes or carry two bodies  

Shoot me, but I am quite attached to that little lens. Most of my personal pictures (non portrait) are taken with either that lens or my wide-angle (which I will eventually upgrade to the full frame, but its a back burner item).



Mike_E said:


> If you are going to be in business then you have to look at this from an economic stand point. Period
> 
> Will the Sigma give you the IQ you need to conduct your business in the near term? Of course it will if you're half the photographer you appear to be.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the good advice   It isn't keeping food from the table (thankfully I have the paying day job), but waiting is keeping me from progressing in the direction I want in photography.  Buying the Nikon 70-200 also prevents me from buying the other lens that I also need, but not as desperately.

I think with the price difference and full frame problems, I am going to probably get the 80-200.  I will go to the camera store and see if they have both in stock to check them out in person too.

Thanks everyone for your input, it was very helpful!


----------



## itznfb (Jun 9, 2009)

i reasearched for about a month before i decided to get the 70-200mm VR instead of the 80-200mm. for one, i prefer shooting DX format for the crop but i tested both out on my friends D3 (he has the 80-200mm and i rented the 70-200mm) and the only issue i saw on the 70-200mm VR was the vignetting as reported by some other users/reviews. however this was easily corrected in photoshop and the pictures were identical. that being said.... why go with the 70-200mm when the pictures were identical? to me the VR was worth the extra $$ and the 70-200mm focused faster (on my D90) especially in low light. not sure why... but on the D3 they focused the same at least from what i could tell. maybe because it's a $5000 camera vs a $800 

edit:
as an additional note, carrying both of them around all day i couldn't tell the difference in weight. so i wouldn't use that as a deciding factor unless you think a couple ounces might make a difference.


----------



## Montana (Jun 9, 2009)

Lyncca said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> > I would get the Nikon 80-200 for full frame use. The 70-200 is too soft in the corners IMHO. My cousin went to the 80-200 from the 70-200 for this reason.
> ...


 

Sorry for the delayed response, my cousin stated that the Nikon 70-200 was softer in the corners than the Nikon 80-200. Neither of us has tried the Sigma in either nikon or canon mount. My cousin shoots D700. He used to shoot a D300, but when he went full frame, he said the 70-200 fell on its face in the corners.  I suppose it makes sense, the 70-200 was designed for crop sensor.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 9, 2009)

Montana said:


> the 70-200 was designed for crop sensor.



no it wasn't.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Jun 9, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> > the 70-200 was designed for crop sensor.
> ...


 

Agreed:thumbup:
If it was designed for a crop sensor is would be a DX lens.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 9, 2009)

Right, I knew it was designed for full frame.


----------



## Montana (Jun 9, 2009)

My bad, I thought Nikon developed the 70-200 before they had full frame digital bodies.

Edit~ I think people are confusing my meaning when I say designed for crop sensors. It covers full frame, but I do not believe Nikon had a full frame digital body out at the time. the 70-200 is from around the Spring of 2003 and the the D3 is March 07(ish) . I think. Therefore it makes sense why its soft in the corners, Nikon didn't have a body that used the corners at the time. 

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts. I know its not designated as a crop lens, but was built before Nikon caught up to the full frame market.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 9, 2009)

Montana said:


> My bad, I thought Nikon developed the 70-200 before they had full frame digital bodies.
> 
> Edit~ I think people are confusing my meaning when I say designed for crop sensors. It covers full frame, but I do not believe Nikon had a full frame digital body out at the time. the 70-200 is from around the Spring of 2003 and the the D3 is March 07(ish) . I think. Therefore it makes sense why its soft in the corners, Nikon didn't have a body that used the corners at the time.
> 
> Sorry if I wasn't clear enough in my earlier posts. I know its not designated as a crop lens, but was built before Nikon caught up to the full frame market.



it was designed for film bodies. the 70-200mm is a direct replacement of the 80-200mm. as SpeedTrap said, lenses designed for crop sensors have the DX logo on them.


----------



## MrLogic (Jun 10, 2009)

^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 10, 2009)

Lyncca said:


> Is there really THAT much difference in the Nikon dream lens and these others?  If you really couldn't have one which of the alternatives would you go for?



The fast answer to your question is... yes.  Lynnca, read this post I just typed out... it is pertinent to your question.

In a wedding, where things move fast, 90% of the Nikon photographers that use a telephoto, use the 70-200 VR.  After having used the Sigma 70-100, Nikkor 80-200 and the Nikkor 70-200... I know why, and I sincerely could not see myself using anything else but the Nikkor 70-200 VR.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 10, 2009)

MrLogic said:


> ^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.



I use my Nikkor 70-200 VR on my D200 (crop sensor) and D700 (full frame sensor) successfully.  Of course the D200 does use a smaller part of the lens due to it's smaller sensor, but it works just fine.

Though this lens was designed in 2003, a little ways before full frame digital cameras were around, it was designed for 35mm film bodies, and optics for film and optics for the digital age have identical needs.

That is why the 85mm F/1.4 Nikkor, one of the BEST lenses around anywhere, even today, is still called the Cream Machine... even though it was designed in 1982!  This lens works wonderfully on either my D200 or D700 and is to this day, one of my most favorite portrait lenses.  Extremely sharp and colour rendition and bokeh that is unmatched anywhere.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 10, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > ^ Hmmm... that makes more sense. I've read on other sites that it was designed for film bodies AND DX format. Somehow I doubt that.
> ...


 
The main photographer used the 85 1.4 to shoot the actual ceremony from upfront at the wedding I just tagged-along to.  They turned out gorgeous.  My 50mm (I was on the left side, she was on the right), was just too far away without cropping.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 10, 2009)

The guy that I shoot with is a Canon user, and uses the 85mm F/1.2. talk about blur... lol.

I'm kinda getting suckered into using a lot of my 50, 85 and 105mm primes and liking the look it gives me at weddings.  I still love the versatility of the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200, though.  Decisions, decisions!


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 10, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> The guy that I shoot with is a Canon user, and uses the 85mm F/1.2. talk about blur... lol.
> 
> I'm kinda getting suckered into using a lot of my 50, 85 and 105mm primes and liking the look it gives me at weddings. I still love the versatility of the Nikkor 24-70 and 70-200, though. Decisions, decisions!


 
Ashley was a Canon user too.  I told her she couldn't be perfect.  
I love my primes, but I need a little more versatility so I am going to get the 24-70 and 80-200 as well.  I'm selling the 70-300 and maybe my 35mm.  Do you think I should keep the last one?  Its a bit faster and I like it, but money doesn't grow on trees (at least in my yard).

Won't sell the nifty fifty unless I upgrade it. That little baby is a life-saver in low-light.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 11, 2009)

Lyncca said:


> Ashley was a Canon user too.  I told her she couldn't be perfect.


LOL... my friend and I also jostle in a friendly way.  Neither one of us are brand snobs, and we both like what we have... me with my D700 and him with is 5D mkII.



Lyncca said:


> I love my primes, but I need a little more versatility so I am going to get the 24-70 and 80-200 as well.
> 
> Won't sell the nifty fifty unless I upgrade it. That little baby is a life-saver in low-light.



Honestly, I have the Nikon 50mm 1.8, but it is going to be sold... because the next lens I am getting is the Sigma 50mm F/1.4.  I tried it out and am going to get it before the end of the summer.  "Sharp, fast and clear" is what they should have named that lens... lol

Lyncca, I wish there was a way I could convince you to test out the 70-200 and 80-200 side by side like I did.  There is enough of a difference, *especially* in wedding scenarios, that you would be better off waiting a YEAR, saving the difference and getting the 70-200 than settling for the 80-200.  Just due to the slow focus speeds alone (not to mention that I found it hunted a lot in low light situations), you will lose at least 20% or more keepers.  For me, that lens would be an exercise in frustration every time I pressed the shutter!

Edit:  The 35mm is a F/2.8 and manual focus, I presume?  Unless you are very comfortable with it, yes I would sell it and the 50mm F/1.8 in favor of the 50mm F/1.4 Sigma.  In real life, the difference in getting the same composition between the 35mm and 50mm is 2-3 steps back.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 11, 2009)

Lyncca, you could just buy a new pair of shoes.  They make great zooms.

You could also look into this..  Nikon | Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens | 1923


----------



## Dao (Jun 11, 2009)

Do you think the value of the used 80-200mm will drop a lot within a year?

From what I learned, good lens usually hold up pretty well.  Buy a 80-200mm now, use it, play with it.  If you do not like it, or you save up more money later on, sell it and use the money plus the extra money you saved and buy the 70-200mm.

I bought my EF 50mm lens for $80 new.  When I sold it a year later, I got $75 back.

One friend of my bought the EF 70-200mm F/2.8 IS lens for $1100 new few years ago.  I am sure if he want to sell it to me for $1100, I will take it.   (too bad, he is not selling the lens)


----------



## Garbz (Jun 11, 2009)

The value of the 80-200 drop? In a year? It hasn't dropped the last 20 years, so I doubt it'll start now. 

Also the 70-200 may cast a full frame circle, but it was developed in 2002, a time where Nikon had only DX digitals on the market, and the film industry had started to plummet into oblivion. It may cast a full frame circle, but it was clearly developed with DX in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be outperformed by it's older brother from the 90s in corner sharpness.


----------



## Lyncca (Jun 11, 2009)

Mike_E said:


> Lyncca, you could just buy a new pair of shoes. They make great zooms.
> 
> You could also look into this.. Nikon | Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens | 1923


 
I have the lens you are refering to.  Actually, I really like my primes, but that doesn't come in handy when you are stuck in one spot and can't move your feet like at a wedding during the ceremony.  I will continue to use the primes, but I need some versatility too 



JerryPH said:


> Lyncca, I wish there was a way I could convince you to test out the 70-200 and 80-200 side by side like I did. There is enough of a difference, *especially* in wedding scenarios, that you would be better off waiting a YEAR, saving the difference and getting the 70-200 than settling for the 80-200. Just due to the slow focus speeds alone (not to mention that I found it hunted a lot in low light situations), you will lose at least 20% or more keepers. For me, that lens would be an exercise in frustration every time I pressed the shutter!
> 
> Edit: The 35mm is a F/2.8 and manual focus, I presume? Unless you are very comfortable with it, yes I would sell it and the 50mm F/1.8 in favor of the 50mm F/1.4 Sigma. In real life, the difference in getting the same composition between the 35mm and 50mm is 2-3 steps back.


 
OK ok, Jerry! I will see if my local camera store has both lenses.  If not maybe someone on my local forum does so I can check both out.  My 35mm is a 2.0, I think I had a typo earlier saying 2.8.  But maybe I will sell both and upgrade to the 1.4.

I have a few weeks before I can get the money together, so have a little while to decide.


----------



## Montana (Jun 11, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Also the 70-200 may cast a full frame circle, but it was developed in 2002, a time where Nikon had only DX digitals on the market, and the film industry had started to plummet into oblivion. It may cast a full frame circle, but it was clearly developed with DX in mind, otherwise it wouldn't be outperformed by it's older brother from the 90s in corner sharpness.


 

Thats what I was alluding to previously.  The corner sharpness of that lens is horrid.  If it were my money, I'd get the 80-200 and save some cash.  If you get a 20% higher keeper rate from using a 70-200, you just need more practice with an 80-200.

Kinda like that Canon shooter that you were second shooting with, they were using Canon's 85 1.2 L.  That is a slow focusing lens, so you gotta know how to use.  Once you know how, its easy.

IMHO, I wouldn't hesitate to go primes.  I am slowly switching over myself.  And if weddings were my bread and butter, I'd switch even faster.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 11, 2009)

Montana said:


> The corner sharpness of that lens is horrid.



lol. that's the most ridiculous statement.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 11, 2009)

A ridiculous statement made by angry 70-200 + FX camera owners all over the internet. I noticed you have a DX camera. So your definition of corner sharpness is probably what is ridiculous in the terms of this discussion. Have a look at FX performance : diglloyd: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR Sorry but if I had an FX camera I would definitely not pay the $2800AU for this lens, not when for $1500AU I can get a much better one.


----------



## Dao (Jun 11, 2009)

hum ..  but the review I read said the same thing

Quoted dpreview 

".....Unfortunately the big problem is that we're not dealing with just a little corner softness and vignetting, but a lot, and there's simply no way to sharpen up those soft corners...."

Nikon AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8G Lens Review: 7. Conclusion & samples: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Double H (Jun 11, 2009)

FWIW, I have the Nikon 80-200, 2.8 D. I wish I could have found the AI-S version, so quiet and fast (my buddy sold his AI-S, what a dumb-ass!). Anyway, I love it. It is still very fast and pretty quiet on my D700. I've used this lens on my Fuji S5 also, and it performs wonderfully! It's a must-have-lens for wedding photographers.


----------



## Montana (Jun 11, 2009)

itznfb said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> > The corner sharpness of that lens is horrid.
> ...


 

Its not ridiculous, and I am not trying to bash you or your equipment. You shoot crop sensor, so it works terrific for you.


----------



## JerryPH (Jun 12, 2009)

Honestly, until you have used both lenses on a FX sensor, all one is doing is regurgitating 2nd hand info. I've had a chance to use two Nikkor 80-200 and two 70-200 Sigmas on my D700 as well as my own 70-200 Nikkor. On the lenses that I had on my camera, the Sigma was by far the worst compared to the Nikkors. The 80-200 was uber slow focusing and showed more camera motion artifacts thanks to no VR at 200mm F/2.8 and low light scenarios (like 99% of weddings are done in).

The Nikkor 70-200 vignette issue... well, all I can say is this:






Nikkor 70-200 at 200mm and F/2.8. This picture is a a RAW file converted to JPG and reduced by flickr, that is 100% all that was done, and has no in camera vignette control activated at all, so this is about the worst possible set of circumstances for vignetting that you can get with the 70-200 and F/2.8... *far* from the black circle that was mentioned. Is it a lot? That is objective. There is nothing in the vignette area that cannot be removed 100% in either post processing or in the D700/D3 camera menu under Vignette Control... voila all gone. Personally, all my pictures get a vignette added anyway, it just looks better.

Edge clarity... no BS, I have not tested it, but Saturday I have a graduation and an E-session and on Sunday I have a wedding to do. I will purposefully use the 70-200 more than usual and take more shots to see how in real life situations it performs (I know already, but this is for the sake of testing now). I will also tack a newspaper to my fence, crank the lens to 200mm on my D700 move back until it fills the frame and shoot away. This will easily show any differences becuase if it is as bad as some people say it is, text in the corners will not be as clear as text in the center.

Having had the 80-200 and 70-200 on my D700, I can say that I am very happy that I put out the cash for the 70-200 and have no regrets. I know that if I had a 80-200 and after last weekend, I would be looking to sell that 80-200 right now and saving to move to the 70-200.

The comparison above to a 200mm F/2.0 PRIME at $5500 to the $1900 zoom is big time apples and oranges.


----------



## itznfb (Jun 12, 2009)

Garbz said:


> A ridiculous statement made by angry 70-200 + FX camera owners all over the internet. I noticed you have a DX camera. So your definition of corner sharpness is probably what is ridiculous in the terms of this discussion. Have a look at FX performance : diglloyd: Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR Sorry but if I had an FX camera I would definitely not pay the $2800AU for this lens, not when for $1500AU I can get a much better one.



i shoot with my friends D3 when i'm with him.



Montana said:


> itznfb said:
> 
> 
> > Montana said:
> ...



jerry is correct. but i would consider his example extreme. the shots i have taken on Fx with my 70-200mm had no where near that much vignetting (which is still so minor) and litterally takes .5 sec to correct in PS.

i had inquired about the vignetting issue prior to puchasing the lens and as always it was blown way out of proportion. there is no better 70-200mm f/2.8 for Fx or Dx. and yes. i've tried the sigma, nikkor and nikkor 80-200 side by side when i rented them prior to purchase.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 13, 2009)

You could also have a surprisingly good copy of the lens. Just with lemons there are occasional gems released. I'm just saying if it works for you great, but it doesn't agree with the vast majority of images and complaints I've seen online.


----------

