I finally found a camera store in town that had both lenses
in stock. I can't belive how hard this was. I live in Atlanta.
It's a big town.
Wolf had both and I went and shot a roll of Reala on some
flags and a movie sign with each lens. Here's what I found.
Obvious:
The Sigma is much more quite than the Nikon (non-AFS).
Neither is noticeably faster focusing than the other.
Not so Obvious:
I like the feel of the Nikon better. Can't explain, I just liked it better.
After the prints are done:
I didn't do this in a true scientific setting. I shot some pictures
on Auto. I realized how stupid this was after I left. I should have
set it to Aperture and gone through the range. Anyway the camera
chose the same aperture each time. I did notice that (f5.8).
I shot several different pictures. I sat the prints out one over the other,
Nikon in one row and Sigma in the other. At first glance I only noticed
one shot that stood out as different. A sign with white letters on a
black background. One shot had noticeably whiter letters than the other
with the naked eye.
I then examined the photos with a 4x loop and found little difference other
than the mentioned diff on the letters. One row MAY have been sharper
than the other on some pictures but not significantly. I'm no pro at
evaluating
photos. I just went based on what I saw and felt.
After all was done. I decided the shots where the letters were whiter were
slightly
better than the others. This was the row of pictures shot with the Nikon
80-200 2.8f Non-AFS.
So now I'm back to my original problem. AFS or non-AFS. I can't decide!
The wife
say's "Whatever you want darling". She's no help. :) And yes, she is a
rare catch.
Does anyone have any other words of wisdom?
Thanks,
Kevin
P.S. I saw the Nikon 300 f4 and liked it very much!
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin S. Mahler, CCNA
WAN Manager, American Cancer Society
Atlanta, GA
See my homepage at <http://www.kmahler.com>
---------------------------------------------------------
