I'd say that the 80-200/2.8 is more of a good lens, rather than great lens.
For sheer IQ the Tammy beats it hands down(except that the Nikon has better colour and bokeh)
Nikon is 'sturdier build quality, with it's all metal body, but unless you want to use it as a hammer this isn't really all that important.
Of the two focusing types, the Tammy is the least inconvenient of the two, and for all intents and purposes, both are not ideal by modern standards.
80-200 doesn't come with a lens hood, and having seen the optional hood that Nikon has for it, it's also sub par when compared to a more modern lens hood.
Don't' get me wrong tho, the 80-200 is still a good lens, it's just that it's now not really that good when compared to the opposition.
Biggest deal breaker for me, is the non sealed design of the lens. It needs a filter of some kind on the front to stop the ingress of dust into the lens over the long term.

(actually, Bjorn and others reckon that for Fx and super sharp corner IQ, the 80-200AF-S is better than a 70-200VR(I)! .. maybe that's why? )

Of the cheaper three lenses in this segment(Sigma, Tammy and Nikon 80-200mm) .. I reckon the best order in terms of ability are: Sigma for the HSM(and probably the OS), the Tammy for the more contrasty and sharper IQ wide open .. but you could easily switch those two based on usage and requirements .. and then the Nikon 80-200.