Nikon 70-200mm f-2.8 Lens

Dooginfif20

I am curious if anyone has any idea what kind of lens I should get that is this type of focal length and f stop as low as 2.8. The only one I saw was $1800.

Cygnus Studios

The 70mm-200mm is a fantastic lens. A bit on the heavy side, but balanced well. B&H sells these in the $1600 range and is well worth it.

Your next bet would be the 80-200mm A bit cheaper, but doesn't offer the same range. Again this is a heavy lens.

bosco0633

70-200 is on my list as well. I have read so many reviews on it and they are all positive.

The 80-200 is not VR which may not be a big deal to you.

I have the 18-200mm but it is only f5.6. I have taken several pictures with it, but I am learning that it is a good everyday lens, but I still want the 70-200mm f2.8 for my 2 boys and their sports.

I have seen it in Canada for 1650. From what I read, it is worth absolutely every penny!!

jstew

older 80 -200mm AF
If you have the money, and need, get the new Nikon VR, if not the older 80-200mm 2.8 AF ED lens (the one before plastic and the tripod collar) is a tac sharp, great color and 1/3 -1/2 the cost . The AF on it is a joke but I almost never use AF. VR is nice but you will find for action and nature, High shutter speeds is what your looking for anyways. If your needing to shoot in low light, and your the only thing thats going to possibly move then the VR is a good thing.

ziggy53

jstew wrote:

If you have the money, and need, get the new Nikon VR, if not the older 80-200mm 2.8 AF ED lens (the one before plastic and the tripod collar) is a tac sharp, great color and 1/3 -1/2 the cost . The AF on it is a joke but I almost never use AF. VR is nice but you will find for action and nature, High shutter speeds is what your looking for anyways. If your needing to shoot in low light, and your the only thing thats going to possibly move then the VR is a good thing.

Jstew, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for the comments.

OhEddie

I got mine just a couple months ago from Adorama, refurbished, for 1599.00, No complaints. I just don't get enough chances to use it. But baseball season starts early here in Georgia

You can get a Demo form Adorama for 1499.00

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20324387.html?searchinfo=nikon%2070-200&item_no=5

Here are the only shots I have made with it so far...

http://hadephoto.com/Sports/667665

http://hadephoto.com/Sports/659783

Dooginfif20

I have been doing a lot of looking at I want to work on portrait shots, but I am curious if this camera might be a bit on the heavy side. Does anyone think there is a close substitute Sigma or Tamron to this lens? I really like this one and the reviews are good its just that price that is scary...

swintonphoto

Dooginfif20 wrote:

I have been doing a lot of looking at I want to work on portrait shots, but I am curious if this camera might be a bit on the heavy side. Does anyone think there is a close substitute Sigma or Tamron to this lens? I really like this one and the reviews are good its just that price that is scary...

Sigma and Tamron both make an excellent 70-200mm 2.8 lens. Here are some good reviews:
Sigma: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/217/cat/31
Tamron: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1090/cat/23

Both look like great lenses. From everything I have heard & read, the Tamron is a tiny bit sharper, but the Sigma focuses faster. I imagine you would be pleased with either one. But if speed is needed, consider the Sigma. If speed isn't an issue, the Tamron is supposed to be tack sharp.

Shane422

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for Nikon. It is $699. It is very sharp, and it doesn't focus as fast as a AFS lens, but then again it is quite a bit cheaper. It is also a full frame lens. Most of my work is for portraits and its great for that. It does tend to hunt for focus a bit more than the Nikon 80-200 f2.8, but not enough to bother me. Here is a shot with it.
f4, 200MM


I read a lot of poor ratings on the Sigma version when I was shopping, but the Sigma is a HSM lens and would be faster focusing.

Cygnus Studios

I tried the Sigma and Tamron prior to purchasing the Nikkor. Both are pretty good, but not quite as sharp or as fast focusing. Not a bad choice if limited on funds.

Dooginfif20

Shane422 wrote:

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for Nikon. It is $699. It is very sharp, and it doesn't focus as fast as a AFS lens, but then again it is quite a bit cheaper. It is also a full frame lens. Most of my work is for portraits and its great for that. It does tend to hunt for focus a bit more than the Nikon 80-200 f2.8, but not enough to bother me. Here is a shot with it.
f4, 200MM


I read a lot of poor ratings on the Sigma version when I was shopping, but the Sigma is a HSM lens and would be faster focusing.

I like your shot! It is kind of good to see this because I am also looking to pick up a D90 so you have provided a really good look at what the future could hold if I purchase that lens. Another thing I was looking for was a lens that wasn't DX just in case I choose at a later date to go full frame so the Tamron sounds pretty good at this point. Being $1000 less I think I could deal with slower AF. Thanks for everyones opinions and ideas! I am looking to use this lens more for portraits so Shane thanks for the excellent example!

Dooginfif20

Also another question I had was how do I know if a lens made by Tamron or Sigma is a DX lens or if it has VR?

jonh68

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Also another question I had was how do I know if a lens made by Tamron or Sigma is a DX lens or if it has VR?

If you are looking at the 70-200 2.8 versions, both work on full frame and DX and neither have Nikons version of VR.

ziggy53

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Also another question I had was how do I know if a lens made by Tamron or Sigma is a DX lens or if it has VR?

Tamron and Sigma have their own abbreviations and nomenclature:

I believe that Tamron uses "Di" in their lens names to indicate "crop" or reduced image circle lenses. Tamron uses "VC" to indicate their optical stabilized lenses.

Sigma uses "DC" for crop lenses and "OS" for stabilization.

Dooginfif20

Ziggy thanks for the info! Jon helpful as always! I am going to see if the local camera shop has either one of these lens on hand and see if I can try them out.

Dooginfif20

Shane422 wrote:

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 for Nikon. It is $699. It is very sharp, and it doesn't focus as fast as a AFS lens, but then again it is quite a bit cheaper. It is also a full frame lens. Most of my work is for portraits and its great for that. It does tend to hunt for focus a bit more than the Nikon 80-200 f2.8, but not enough to bother me. Here is a shot with it.
f4, 200MM


I read a lot of poor ratings on the Sigma version when I was shopping, but the Sigma is a HSM lens and would be faster focusing.

Shane I looked up the lens you suggested and if the info that Ziggy provided is true then that lens is a DX lens. Is this true? If so is there a lens that Tamron makes that is that range that isnt a crop lens?

Cygnus Studios

Here is the Sigma Full Frame

Cygnus Studios

ziggy53 wrote:

I believe that Tamron uses "Di" in their lens names to indicate "crop" or reduced image circle lenses.

This was true, but Tamron has changed the Di designation to mean Digitally Integrated Design. They now use Di II.
Really throws things off now.

See Tamron 70-200mm review

ziggy53

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Shane I looked up the lens you suggested and if the info that Ziggy provided is true then that lens is a DX lens. Is this true? If so is there a lens that Tamron makes that is that range that isnt a crop lens?

It appears I am in error. The Tamron "Di-II" is the crop designation. Tamron "Di" are simply designed for digital, probably because of coatings or something.

See the feature key on this page:

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/all_in_one_zooms.asp

The Tamron 70-200mm, F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro is indeed a full-frame lens (FX in the case of Nikon).

Full description here:

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70200_di.asp

Sorry about that.

ziggy53

Cygnus Studios wrote:

This was true, but Tamron has changed the Di designation to mean Digitally Integrated Design. They now use Di II.
Really throws things off now.

See Tamron 70-200mm review

Thanks Steve.

Shane422

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Shane I looked up the lens you suggested and if the info that Ziggy provided is true then that lens is a DX lens. Is this true? If so is there a lens that Tamron makes that is that range that isnt a crop lens?

It looks like Ziggy beat me to the punch. Just an FYI, I was leaning toward the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 just because it is a lighter lens, but it is a Crop lens so that was a deciding factor for me.

Dooginfif20

Thanks for the help there. Now after reading a lot of reviews some say they prefer it over the nikon 70-200 and some say not. Some say they prefer it over the Tamron 70-200 some say not. Is the Tamron AF honestly that much slower that it would make that big of a difference?

Shane422

Well I have had the chance to use the Nikon 70-200 AFS VR, the Nikon 80-200 AF-D, and the Tamron. The VR version is truly amazing, but it should be for $1600. The 80-200 is very good and just a tad faster focusing that the Tamron, but not much. I have used it for a few indoor basketball games and was satisfied.

I bought the Tamron because $700 was the top of my budget, and it is just as sharp as the 80-200. The other advantage the Tamron has is that is has the ability to focus at 3ft. The Nikon 80-200 can't focus under 6ft.

So if you are going to shoot mainly sports, I would still probably go with the Nikon if you can swing it. If its for portraits, the Tamron would be my choice.

Dooginfif20

Shane422 wrote:

Well I have had the chance to use the Nikon 70-200 AFS VR, the Nikon 80-200 AF-D, and the Tamron. The VR version is truly amazing, but it should be for $1600. The 80-200 is very good and just a tad faster focusing that the Tamron, but not much. I have used it for a few indoor basketball games and was satisfied.

I bought the Tamron because $700 was the top of my budget, and it is just as sharp as the 80-200. The other advantage the Tamron has is that is has the ability to focus at 3ft. The Nikon 80-200 can't focus under 6ft.

So if you are going to shoot mainly sports, I would still probably go with the Nikon if you can swing it. If its for portraits, the Tamron would be my choice.

I think sports is a later on thing. Portraits was my main idea with this lens. Thanks for all the info Shane. It really helped!

jonh68

If portraits are going to be the use, you can get a used 80-200 2.8 for 600-800 dollars. I wouldn't get a Tamron over the Nikon unless you need close focus.

Get the Sigma 70-200 if you need faster focus.