Nikon 70-200mm users tell me your thoughts.

midnight rider

If you are using this lens on a full frame camera I would love to know what you think about all the negative reviews. I have read that the corners are very soft and that the lens has issues with light fall off. Does the in camera correction help this? Is it really that beg of an issue or are the reviews just blowing it out of proportion? What are the focus lock buttons for?
Sample images would be very helpful.
Thanks.

dangin

i'm a wedding shooter and this lens is an essential part of my shooting; the only other lens i use more is my nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. it's a fantastic lens. is it a smidge soft at times? i suppose if you're super critical... i shoot wide open at 2.8 on my D3 bodies w/ it and think the results are consistently good-great given the usage. there is a little bit of falloff on the corners. if you're hung up on this, it's easily correctable in lightroom. overall, it's a phenomenal lens and i'd be hard pressed to give mine up even though i could probably sell it now used for what i paid for it new.

for comparison's sake, i have tamron's older 70-210mm f/2.8 and their newer 70-200mm f/2.8. the new tamron is probably just as sharp as the nikkor. it does have a shorter MFD (nikkor's > 5ft if i remember right). VR certainly helps in a dimly lit church when you're shooting long at 1/50.

i'll dig up some recent sample images when i get home tonite.

Cygnus Studios

I own it. There is some softness when open wide, but nothing that would keep me from recommending it. There is also some light fall off, but again, not that big of a deal.
I also own the Sigma version. If VR is a big thing for you, the Nikkor is a great buy. If not, buy the Sigma and you will be quite happy.

midnight rider

Cygnus Studios wrote:

I own it. There is some softness when open wide, but nothing that would keep me from recommending it. There is also some light fall off, but again, not that big of a deal.
I also own the Sigma version. If VR is a big thing for you, the Nikkor is a great buy. If not, buy the Sigma and you will be quite happy.

Would you recommend the Sigma over the 80-200mm F/2.8 D Nikkor?

midnight rider

dangin wrote:

i'm a wedding shooter and this lens is an essential part of my shooting; the only other lens i use more is my nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8. it's a fantastic lens. is it a smidge soft at times? i suppose if you're super critical... i shoot wide open at 2.8 on my D3 bodies w/ it and think the results are consistently good-great given the usage. there is a little bit of falloff on the corners. if you're hung up on this, it's easily correctable in lightroom. overall, it's a phenomenal lens and i'd be hard pressed to give mine up even though i could probably sell it now used for what i paid for it new.

for comparison's sake, i have tamron's older 70-210mm f/2.8 and their newer 70-200mm f/2.8. the new tamron is probably just as sharp as the nikkor. it does have a shorter MFD (nikkor's > 5ft if i remember right). VR certainly helps in a dimly lit church when you're shooting long at 1/50.

i'll dig up some recent sample images when i get home tonite.

Thanks, Samples would be great.
Are the focus lock buttons to lock a set focus point for really quick return?

ziggy53

There are 4 current and common lenses in this approximate range for Nikon shooters:

1) Nikkor AF-S VR, 70-200mm, f2.8G IF-ED
2) Nikkor 80-200mm, f2.8D ED (commonly called the Nikkor 80-200mm, AF-D)
3) Sigma 70-200mm, F2.8 EX DG APO MACRO HSM
4) Tamron SP AF 70-200mm, F2.8 Di LD(IF) Macro

Of these I believe that only the Nikkor 80-200mm uses the Nikon body AF screw drive and is thus somewhat more defendant on the host body for focus speed (beyond the AF module and image processor.) So the Nikkor 80-200mm will focus somewhat faster on the "prodessional" Nikon bodies than the lesser bodies.

I tested 2 copies of the Sigma 70-200mm, f2.8 HSM (not the Macro version however) and I found it to be somewhat soft wide open due to an odd "ringing" in high contrast image regions. A couple of more recent professional tests/reviews also found similar results in the Macro version. the lens sharpens quickly by f4.

The Tamron, I believe, is using an older "micro-motor" technology and may not be fast enough for many action sports. Otherwise it is a very modern, sharp and competent zoom lens.

The 2 Nikkors have similar image attributes but only the one has VR technology, and it is also pretty expensive. Both are very high quality optics and both can deliver quality images. Differences in image quality are largely quibbles.

If you need VR, your decision is considerably simplified to a single lens. If you need rapid AF, capable of keeping up with action sports, then the top 3 lenses are likely up to the task, depending upon your body.

If you want the best of almost all worlds then I think I would highly recommend the Nikkor AF-S VR, 70-200mm, f2.8G IF-ED as the overall winner except in cost.

midnight rider

Sorry for failing to mention. The lens ( what ever it ends up being) will be mounted on a D700.
Thanks for all the replies.

Cygnus Studios

midnight rider wrote:

Would you recommend the Sigma over the 80-200mm F/2.8 D Nikkor?

That is a real tough one. Kind of a toss up in my opinion. You would be happy with either.

catspaw

Cygnus Studios wrote:

That is a real tough one. Kind of a toss up in my opinion. You would be happy with either.

In equestrian sports, the 70-200 is a KEY lens. It's recommended to have a backup. Considering the Sigma as a good backup?

Pindy

The week I had it, I loved it. I didn't really see what all the fuss was re: light fall off and corner softness. The AF is the fastest I have ever experienced.

Cygnus Studios

catspaw wrote:

Considering the Sigma as a good backup?

My Nikkor backs up the Sigma. It really is a great lens.

catspaw

Cygnus Studios wrote:

My Nikkor backs up the Sigma. It really is a great lens.

REALLY? now you've got me very intrigued must go research this lens ....

midnight rider

Cygnus Studios wrote:

My Nikkor backs up the Sigma. It really is a great lens.

A statement that bold should require samples.
How does the 80-200mm do with these lenses? Is is not even in the running?

Cygnus Studios

midnight rider wrote:

A statement that bold should require samples.
How does the 80-200mm do with these lenses? Is is not even in the running?

I have been compiling a complete studio test of all the current glass in my lineup. Comparing apples to apples as it were. The 80-200mm is a fantastic lens also. Faster at focusing, but not quite as sharp at the open end. Really hits hard at F4.
My favorite lenses in order are my 14-24mm F2.8, my 50 F1.8, and my Bigma. All my other glass is specific to a particular job.

rookieshooter

For what it's worth these were all taken with a D700 70-200 VR

http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/gallery/8180932_Abz4K#534269646_ttxR2

I thought it was fine.

Pindy

rookieshooter wrote:

For what it's worth these were all taken with a D700 70-200 VR

http://joshnorem.smugmug.com/gallery/8180932_Abz4K#534269646_ttxR2

I thought it was fine.

That peacock shot does not suck.

rookieshooter

Pindy wrote:

That peacock shot does not suck.

maybe, but the rest of them do. I was very disappointed with this series. Plus it cost me $30 to get to the zoo from midtown.

Pindy

rookieshooter wrote:

maybe, but the rest of them do. I was very disappointed with this series. Plus it cost me $30 to get to the zoo from midtown.

It's hell taking pictures, eh? :cry

angevin1

rookieshooter wrote:

maybe, but the rest of them do. I was very disappointed with this series. Plus it cost me $30 to get to the zoo from midtown.

Perhaps you might share with everyone the photos you were disappointed in, including EXIF..The ones I see are fine.

As far as soft corners are concerned. Looking at the DXO testing module for this lens from SLRgear.com
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/134/cat/13

You can see the blur or amount of blur recorded on their copy.

And as far as light fall off, on the D700, I cannot help but wonder if they are adjusting the vignette control in the shooting menu?? It has HIGH, LOW and OFF and the "?" says "increases peripheral illumination"

midnight rider

rookieshooter wrote:

maybe, but the rest of them do. I was very disappointed with this series. Plus it cost me $30 to get to the zoo from midtown.

Thanks for the link. I saw several on there taken at 2.8
Did you crop or post process these much?
Oh and I think every shot I have ever taken sucks. The thing is that I am my own worse critic. Your shots look good. It just sucks that they were in a zoo.

rookieshooter

midnight rider wrote:

Thanks for the link. I saw several on there taken at 2.8
Did you crop or post process these much?
Oh and I think every shot I have ever taken sucks. The thing is that I am my own worse critic. Your shots look good. It just sucks that they were in a zoo.

Most were cropped but all are straight off the camera. I don't do photoshop as I've found the D700 has the color and saturation that I like and there's no need to mess with it. As far as exposure goes, the camera delivers. I just adjust the aperture and it works.

As for why I'm disappointed, it''s just the zoo setting. You can only shoot from a certain spot and if you don't stand there all day waiting for the animal to do something cool you're left with a basically cold shot of the animal just sitting there being itself.

With animals it's always good if they are doing something interesting but I feel in those shots most of them are just sitting there. It doesn't make for compelling photography in my opinion.

bloomphotog

I love my 80-200.... I just can't justify the extra $800 to get VR. I never shoot below 1/200 anyways. Does anyone have any experience with both the 80-200 AFS and the 70-200 VR? Focus speed is the only serious advantage I have heard about.