Nikon Equiptment Info

JasonL

Hello all. I am currently shooting Nikon D200. I have a 18 to 200 VR and a 50mm 1.8d, 2 sb800's. I am getting ready to buy some new glass for lower light since I had alot of trouble at the last event i shot because of the lack of lighting. I am definatly going to get a 17 to 50mm 2.8, not sure what one yet. My big question is what longer lens???? I am currently looking at 3. The sigma 50 to 150mm f2.8, the nikon 70 to 200 vr f2.8, and a nikon 80 to 200 afs 2.8. I know everyone is going to just say the 70 to 200. Let's face it, it's very expensive. I will be honest the sigma 50 to 150 is really peeking my inteest, the focal length seems to be the best for leaving it on the camera. How much difference do you think the vr makes on the faster glass. Would love some advice on these 3 lens.

ziggy53

I don't believe you will find anything better than the NIKKOR 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED. It really is a very sweet lens.

Next best would be the NIKKOR 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. This is the value Nikkor tele-zoom. It's not as fast to focus as the VR lens, but it's still a very nice lens and gives great results.

The Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 APO EX DC HSM is still pretty new and there is some early reporting of focus problems but that may be unreasonable testing and such. Many people are happy with the lens. I do think the Nikkor lenses are somewhat better.

JasonL

Thanks

ziggy53 wrote:

I don't believe you will find anything better than the NIKKOR 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED. It really is a very sweet lens.

Next best would be the NIKKOR 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. This is the value Nikkor tele-zoom. It's not as fast to focus as the VR lens, but it's still a very nice lens and gives great results.

The Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 APO EX DC HSM is still pretty new and there is some early reporting of focus problems but that may be unreasonable testing and such. Many people are happy with the lens. I do think the Nikkor lenses are somewhat better.

Thanks for the reply. I know the 70 to 200 is the best out there, but again, the price and the focal length. Is there anyone out there that has first hand experience with that sigma lens? Would love to hear and see some examples.

david_h

What Ziggy said. In the Nikon world the 70-200 VR is in a class of its own. Since you are starting to do weddings, it is the perfect weapon for the times you are stuck in the back of a dark church with no flash allowed.

The 80-200 is also a really good lens, but the VR on the 70-200 really does work well and is worth paying for IMO.

A pretty good alternative in 70-200 range is the Sigma F2.8. I used to have one of these years ago and it is a nice lens at a good price - doesn't compare to the 70-200 VR Nikon though.

JasonL

oh i wish ha ha

david_h wrote:

What Ziggy said. In the Nikon world the 70-200 VR is in a class of its own. Since you are starting to do weddings, it is the perfect weapon for the times you are stuck in the back of a dark church with no flash allowed.

The 80-200 is also a really good lens, but the VR on the 70-200 really does work well and is worth paying for IMO.

A pretty good alternative in 70-200 range is the Sigma F2.8. I used to have one of these years ago and it is a nice lens at a good price - doesn't compare to the 70-200 VR Nikon though.

I really want the 70 to 200 vr, but it is so much money ha ha............ i see its in such demand its going for 2499 on amazon

jonh68

One of the things about the 50-150 is it's made for cropped digital sensors. With more and more full frame camera coming out, it will not be full frame.

I have the 80-200 af and I really like it. It would be a good alternative to the 70-200 vr. Sigma has a 70-200 which is heavier than the 80-200, but has faster focus. If focusing is an issue for you, get the sigma 70-200 instead of the 50-150 unbless you know you will not use a full frame camera.

Shane422

I was after the Sigma 50-150 as well, but I found a lot of bad reviews, and no one local seemed to carry them for the reason that they did not think highly of them. I ended up going with the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Its goes for $699, and is very sharp. the only knock on it is a slower autofocus. One advantage is that its minimum focus is 32" where as the Nikon 80-200 is closer to 6ft.

dangin

ziggy53 wrote:

I don't believe you will find anything better than the NIKKOR 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED. It really is a very sweet lens.

Next best would be the NIKKOR 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. This is the value Nikkor tele-zoom. It's not as fast to focus as the VR lens, but it's still a very nice lens and gives great results.

The Sigma 50-150mm F/2.8 APO EX DC HSM is still pretty new and there is some early reporting of focus problems but that may be unreasonable testing and such. Many people are happy with the lens. I do think the Nikkor lenses are somewhat better.

+1

i have the nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 and the new tamron 70-200 f/2.8. the tamron is lighter and more comfortable to lug around all day on a wedding shoot. however i shoot primarily with the nikkor since it has VR and superior optics. on that note, i can't recommend the sigma 50-150 due to comments i got about it from another shooter who had it. he complained about AF problems and a sporadic but unnerving clinking noise it would sometimes make. if you want to save some $$$, check out the new tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for nikon. it's got an internal AF-S-like servo that's pretty quiet but not as fast as nikkor AF-S.

JasonL

Thanks

dangin wrote:

+1

i have the nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 and the new tamron 70-200 f/2.8. the tamron is lighter and more comfortable to lug around all day on a wedding shoot. however i shoot primarily with the nikkor since it has VR and superior optics. on that note, i can't recommend the sigma 50-150 due to comments i got about it from another shooter who had it. he complained about AF problems and a sporadic but unnerving clinking noise it would sometimes make. if you want to save some $$$, check out the new tamron 70-200 f/2.8 for nikon. it's got an internal AF-S-like servo that's pretty quiet but not as fast as nikkor AF-S.

Thanks for the info, can you tell me or post up some comparison pics? Whats your opinion on the quality comparedd of the 2 of them?

kini62

JasonL wrote:

Thanks for the info, can you tell me or post up some comparison pics? Whats your opinion on the quality comparedd of the 2 of them?

DPReview has a nice review of the Tamron. It may be the sharpest of ALL the 70-200/2.8 lenses currently available (at 2.8), has some great color.

I've not read a single negative comment regarding the IQ of this lens. The only knock is the sometimes slow AF. And unfortunetly for wedding photographers the slowness seems to correspond with low light:cry

But at the price it's worth a shot. Get it from Amazon and you've got 30 days to decide if it workd for you.

Another really nice lens is the Tokina 50-135/2.8. Also seems to get very good reviews as to IQ, not too sure about the AF speed and it's a crop sensor lens only if that matters.

Gene

Shane422

Tamron 70-200 f2.8
Here are a few for you.

130MM 2.8 (Tamron 70-200)


150MM f2.8 (Tamron 70-200)


135MM f3.5 (Tamron 70-200)

JasonL

great

Shane422 wrote:

Here are a few for you.

130MM 2.8 (Tamron 70-200)


150MM f2.8 (Tamron 70-200)


135MM f3.5 (Tamron 70-200)

great shots, that lens looks fantastic. so you think the quality is online with the VR?

Shane422

I won't say that its equal to a $1700 lens. But its quite good and I am extremely happy with my purchase. Its better to compare it with the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 which is about $900. That lens feels a bit better than the Tamron in my hands. Its balanced a bit better ( i.e. the Tamron is a bit front heavy), and the Nikon tripod mount is in the way less when hand holding. But the Tamron was cheaper, lighter, and focused 3ft closer. For me $700 was a great deal of money for a lens. Another $200 for things that didn't matter much to me was just not likely to happen.