Luxury4Play.com banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm playing around with the idea of getting a telephoto lens to compliment my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens for my Nikon D70. I had a Nikon 55-200 VR, but I'd like something faster. I am starting to take photos of my very active 2 year old son and I am finding I can't get enough reach without getting too close to him. Ever since I bought my f/2.8 lens, I'm also addicted to a fast lens and it's flexibility. Here are my options:

- Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D (about $1100 new) - Does the lack of VR matter?
- Nikon 80-200 AF-S f/2.8D (about $900 used) - Any concern in a used lens?
- Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (about $2150 new) - If it were a little cheaper, this would be a no brainer. Is it really worth the almost double?
- Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (about $730 new) - I've had good luck with my Tamron, but I don't think it focuses as quickly as a Nikon lens. No VR.
- Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (about $800 new) - I have no experience with Sigma.

Thanks for the help!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,666 Posts
For me its either

Nikon 70-200 VR ($1500)
Nikon 70-200 VR2 (not sure id use the benefits of VR2 and the nano crystal tech, as i dont shoot into the sun at 200mm) $2150
Sigma 120-300 2.8 (this lens im considering the most) $2000

Sigma are also in the process of updating their lens to include their VR but its co-made with Hoya and rumoured to cost $3500.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,568 Posts
I personally stick to almost only Nikon gear with my D300. If you are okay with spending the money then I would definitely go with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. If you want to try them out to decide consider renting each one for a week and seeing which you enjoy the most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If you want to try them out to decide consider renting each one for a week and seeing which you enjoy the most.
This is what I'd like to do for at least the Nikon 70-200 VRII. The other lenses are a little hard to rent around here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
597 Posts
My friend has the 70-200 vrII and its a serious piece of glass. I couldnt believe the weight, but the sharpness and speed is amazing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
I definitely get where you are coming from when you say you are trying to decide. Fast lenses are definitely awesome and better for "low light" situations or if your looking to Make your depth of field view "deeper" in a sense.. if you know photography then you get where I'm coming from.

To be honest though. If low light isn't an issue, I would look into nikons 70-300 VR. it does its job.. and considering you shoot with a camera that isn't full frame.. Nikons Professional series.. which im pretty sure is the D700 on up.. your lens actually magnifies by 1.5.. so in technical terms the 70-300mm is actually a 105-450mm lens
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,666 Posts
D300 and above is Prosumer along with D700, D3* series is Professional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Well, I got a rental for a 70-200 VRII this weekend. I'll give it a shot (pun intended) and see if I like it. Nikon is running some rebates on this lens with a new body, so I may consider it given the age of my D70.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,904 Posts
D300 and above is Prosumer along with D700, D3* series is Professional.
Thanks for the correction!

And awesome! Let me know how that vr2 works out.. I've been wantin to get my hands on one but money is a bit of an issue for me right now. I will definitely have to rent one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
The AF Speed of the 70-200/2.8 blows the 80-200/2.8 out of the water. Focusing speed on the 80-200/2.8 will be a lot slower compared to the 70-200/2.8 because of the body you've got.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Focusing speed on the 80-200/2.8 will be a lot slower compared to the 70-200/2.8 because of the body you've got.
That's what I figured, but I'm buying all my lenses first before I upgrade the body (probably to a D7000).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
I would take the 80-200/2.8 AF-S.
(My argument is based on my experiences with these lenses.)

•Focuses about as fast as 70-200
•Is sharper than the 70-200 (at least from what I've been shown by a friend)
•Save money buying used/Strong resale value
•Very reliable lens.

Don't consider the Sigma/Tamron variations. My friend's Sigma always had front/back focusing issues and is pretty soft when shooting wide open at f/2.8. Tamron focuses incredibly slow.

80-200 AF-S is a pretty safe bet, but don't buy the 80-200 wishing you would have bought the 70-200. Good luck! :)
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top