80-200 f/2.8 vs 100-300 f/4

[Slide]

I own the 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkor but have been looking at the 100-300 f/4 Sigma. I'm wondering if any body has used both what were your thoughts, did you miss the extra f stop?

[gummi]

Heya Slide,

I think they're really for different things, it basically boils down to what you want to use it for. I've only played with a friend's one, the sigma has limited use indoors (for my shooting style) and yes I did miss the extra stop (OS woulda helped to a degree), but it really shines outdoors. This is pretty much the only lens with this range and price bracket, and am considering getting it myself.

The 80-200 is superb, but more versatile indoors, and a decently smaller. If you can afford to keep both, do so, but if you have to have one or the other I think your decision will come down to which lens will suit what and how you shoot more often. Post back and let us know what you decide!

[Slide]

Thanks gummi for your thoughts, I think I may do the old "Buy and see which I like more", just means I'll be waiting for a while before I get it.

[gummi]

I'm saving up as well - also want the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 - tossing up which one to get first between the two. Post some pics up when you actually get it!

[arthurking83]

Having had the 80-200/2.8, and knowing that it can be a great lens(except that mine backfocused on my D300, but didn't on the D80 that eventually became its new home!) ... you'll love it too. As has already been asked, it depends entirely on what exactly you want it for. I found that I was usually at 105-200 for the vast majority of the time, which should have been the pointer to the fact that I'd have been better off with a 100-300/4 and NOT a 70-200/2.8 again!

YMMV, so if you want a portrait lens the Nikon is the way to go, if you want it more for sports or birding, or whatever.. I reckon the Sigma is way better.
Indoors 80-200 on a crop body!!! I found it annoying more than anything else.
Did it a lot, found that I preferred to step closer(hence something more 28-75mm like ) than to stay back, unless you are doing indoor concert kind of events.

They can be considered different tools for different purposes, and I liked the Nikon for portraits, as it renders a nicer bokeh.
I've had a quick play with Andrews 100-300/4 and I'm sad to say that it's become one of those addictions, where even though I have that range basically covered, but I think I need one of them too

How are you going for the focal range up to 100mm? That could be a deciding factor too.

Whichever you get, I'm sure you'll find happiness.

[Slide]

Well my main rational behind getting the 100-300 and offing the 80-200 was that it would cut out getting the 300f/4 nikkor (the only affordable telephoto lens Nikon has), thus saving me 1600 odd bucks. I have not really used the 80-200 indoors but have found the 2.8 useful when out shooting a bit of nature and light drops or some lizards are hiding in the shade (I don't like using my D80 over ISO 400).

I'm not sure on how to fill the 16-100 range yet was thinking the 18-105 vr or 50 and 85 1.8's not super concerned about my mid range as UWA and telle are my main realms of play. Thanks for your input arthurking83

[N*A*M]

i thought about this same question not long ago when i wanted more reach, but i decided to stay with the nikkor.

[Slide]

Well guys sorry to drag up an old post but I can offer some closure on this topic as I now own both.

The short of it is my 80-200 is no longer sitting in my camera bag. If you like to shoot in the extremes the sigma is hard to go past without spending alot more money.

I will hopefully get around to doing a side by side review one day.

[arthurking83]

Hope you get some good results with the Siggy Slide, 'tis a good lens.(big!!.. but good).

I suspect that when you want a telephoto lens, the minimal difference between 80mm and 100mm is not going to be noticed(missed) .. but the difference between 200mm and 300mm is going to be a lot more obvious.

I found that when I wanted nice sharp shots, my 80-200/2.8 was a bit to soft, or lacking in contrast at f/2.8 and over 150mm(or thereabouts), below that it was excellent in sharpness/contrast/bokeh/colour etc. My only reservation with that lens was at the longer focal lengths.
I found that at f/4 it started to work a lot better.

.... actually what I need is a 200-400mm zoom

[muli]

These 80-200 F/2.8 any good for sports e.g surf photography?

[beedee]

These 80-200 F/2.8 any good for sports e.g surf photography?

80-200mm you can get away with some sports, if you are close to the action, like club football where you can be on the sidelines.. It is ok to use say, Australian Open Tennis, enclosure courts and even stadium courts like Margaret Court Arena..

300mm or longer is best for major sporting events.

[Slide]

It's Probably going to be a bit short for that, you might be better with the 80-400 nikkor or the 100-300 sig + 1.4tc or one of the other super sigmas... unless you have deep pockets.