File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I have the opportunity to buy either a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 macro HSM (Nikon mount) for 900CAD or a nikkor 80-200mm AF-D 2.8 (WITH a B+W UV filter) for $850 CAD. Which do I pick? Both are in near mint condition.
>> Anonymous
>>296730

Nikon, use extra 50 for something else.
>> Anonymous
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8
>> Anonymous
If I were you I'd try and get a Nikno 70-200 f2.8, and try to get the one with the VR. It's worth it.
However, if you want one of those, I'd go for the nikkor, the quality is way better.
>> Anonymous
well I was considering the sigma for a few reasons...
A) shorter minimum focusing distance
B) internal motor
C) colouring of images seems a little more vivid from examples I've seen

Of course the nikon is a nikon, cheaper, and actually could be used with my old FM as well because it has an aperture ring
>> Anonymous
>>296745

>a Nikon is a Nikon

Well, there ya go. Or try flipping a coin, hahahaha.
>> Anonymous
>>296745
>colouring of images seems a little more vivid from examples I've seen

Lenses affect saturation?
>> Anonymous
>>296758
yes
>> Anonymous
I have the nikkor 70-200...trust me it's worth the investment...I've tired to get aberrations and I can't
>> Anonymous
I would get the Nikkor...
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Try to find a used 80-200 af-s, should go for about $1000 CAD
Optically superior to the af-d, Faster AF than both of these lenses, and the lens hood frightens children and small animals
>> Anonymous
well I saw an af-s non-vr in a camera store for about 1100. But the collar is really banged up and I'll have to pay like 12% tax on top too.
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>296799
thats expensive then, I got mine with a Kirk custom collar for $950 CAD.

Maybe check around to other places first, craigslist etc..
Stores usually mark up a bit.
>> Anonymous
so now the sigma guy is offering $820+filter, still nikon?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>296935
yes
>> Anonymous
Go for the Nikkor AF-D.

Buy the Sigma, you'll be making excuses and end up with a worthless lens when you want to upgrade. With the Nikon, your AF should be just as good, as long as you have a decent body, you'll have a tougher, sharper lens, one that was a professional standard for a decade, and it'll still be worth nearly what you paid for it when you decide to upgrade in the future.

A good general rule (with certain rare exceptions) is to always go for the first-party glass unless you NEED a focal range and CAN'T afford the Nikon/Canon/Sony/whatever stuff. Since the real Nikon is cheaper here, it's definitely the way to go.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
kcr tihS ??
dvo lif n.3

nac stievaS
egami iht eO .

b
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
.skcirb tihS .5

??? .4

.devas uoy elif eht nepO .3

sj.nahc4 sa ti evaS .2

.egami siht nepO .1

x