Need advice on nikkor 70-200 alternantive

mpaulie

So I don't have enough money to buy a nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR or VR II new so I'm trying to weigh my options.

1. Wait and try to find an amazing deal on a used 70-200 VR I from someone upgrading
2. Get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 without their version of VR
3. Get an Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (no VR)
4. Your suggestions???

Main use would be wedding and portrait work.

Thanks,
Mike

jonh68

Look on KEH.com at the used selection of 70-200 vrI's. A friend just bought a used bgn grade for $1200 and works just fine. If you are going to be doing weddings, the VR can come in handy.

angevin1

mpaulie wrote: »

So I don't have enough money to buy a nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 VR or VR II new so I'm trying to weigh my options.

1. Wait and try to find an amazing deal on a used 70-200 VR I from someone upgrading
2. Get the Sigma 70-200 2.8 without their version of VR
3. Get an Nikkor 80-200 2.8 (no VR)
4. Your suggestions???

Main use would be wedding and portrait work.

Thanks,
Mike

Hi Mike!

I can speak for the 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor. Quite a nice lens, and very, very sharp too. Even the older version I had was not too slow for wedding work, and portraits either. But...it was heavy! And inexpensive. I sold it to someone on here, for a song: <$500.

Of course I can speak for the VRII also, but that is not an option for you right now. If you must have a zoom in that range, I venture to say you cannot do better than that Nikon piece. I know you can get a Sigma and others, but the Nikon is a sharp piece. And I did have the Nikon-70-300Vr just for comparison, and there was no comparison!

That old lens is a pro piece, albeit dated.

mpaulie

Thanks John and Tom for the info to help me make a decision. 80-200 may be the best I can get for my money.

Mitchell

I wouldn't buy this focal length zoom without VR if shooting portraits and weddings. Keep your eyes open for a used VRI copy. There are plenty out there upgrading to VRII.

System

Mitchell wrote: »

I wouldn't buy this focal length zoom without VR if shooting portraits and weddings. Keep your eyes open for a used VRI copy. There are plenty out there upgrading to VRII.

I agree with Mitch. I had the Sigma 70-200 2.8 for a while but sold it. For me, It was impossible to hand hold at all. Even using a monopod was a challenge. Save up for something with VR.

Foques

I own a 70-200 sigma, and pretty happy with it. I do think that it gets a wee bit soft at 200mm, at high iso, but aside from that, it is a decent lens.

mpaulie

Right now I'm second shooting, so I am getting paid. Doing some more research I do think it is worth it to save more and get the VR. I guess I'll just have to rent it until I have enough.

Jeremy Winterberg

I would save for the VRI. For now rent one when you need it. Thats what I did/do. for $80 a VRI can be yours for a week! Its a great way to test lenses before you buy them, or to have the lens you need without shelling out $1300 for a used lens. I personally dont like that focal length too much, so it only would be used at a wedding.. which I dont have too many of those happening right now. So, for me renting is the best way. Just an option to consider.

Matthew Saville

I vote, as usual, for the Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC. I have rented the Nikon 70-200 VR1, 80-200 AFS and AFD, tested the 70-200 VR2, and owned the Sigma 70-200 DG HSM for a brief period. They're all great lenses and pretty sharp, but I just didn't care for the weight. I knew there had to be something better. Then along came the Sigma 50-150 2.8, and I have been oh-so-happy ever since. I started using it on my D70's back in 2006 or 2007, whenever it first came out, and now I use it on a D300 + D200 and it never lets me down.

Check my website and 50-75% of the images you see will be from this lens.

The only catch is, of course, it's a crop sensor lens and you've got to have at least 1-2 years of commitment to the DX system for it to be worth your while. If you think you'll be buying a D700 in the next year or two, maybe skip the crop sensor lens. But if you know that FX just isn't in the cards for a while, make yourself VERY happy with the Sigma 50-150 2.8...

:-)

=Matt=

mpaulie

Thanks for another option Matt, I'll definitely check it out!

mpaulie

Quick question for Matt... Have you gone full frame? If so do you have something in this range for it or do you keep a DX with the 50-150?

digger2

weight
why would you want to carry all that weight around? On a wedding?

mpaulie

I've been asked by primary photogs that I 2nd for to have something in that range. I've rented the 70-200 vr for this Saturday. We'll see how it goes.

angevin1

mpaulie wrote: »

I've been asked by primary photogs that I 2nd for to have something in that range. I've rented the 70-200 vr for this Saturday. We'll see how it goes.

It's heavy, but that is why we have muscles! Unless you have a medical condition, weight will not be an issue!

If you have the bucks to rent, it is the way to go( VR1/2) but if not, I still say the 80-200 is a fine piece!

And Matt shoots Dx, though I did read him saying he gave aa FX a spin around the block recently. That 50-150mm he mentions sounds inviting!

mpaulie

UPS just dropped it off, wow this thing is massive!

IMG_0457.jpg

Definitely have to get used to not holding this thing.

Matthew Saville

mpaulie wrote: »

Quick question for Matt... Have you gone full frame? If so do you have something in this range for it or do you keep a DX with the 50-150?

I shoot (rent / borrow) full-frame when necessary, but will probably NEVER own a 70-200 2.8. I just don't care for the weight. Call me a sissy but if I can save 1.5 lbs, I'll do it. (Approximate difference between 70-200 VR2 and Sigma 50-150 2.8...)

That, and I like to be a little more incognito. I know some professionals feel the opposite way, that they NEED to have a massive lens in order to command presence, but I go the opposite route- I believe that I get better candids and portraits, especially of children, when my camera doesn't look intimidating. The 50-150 is smaller than most 70-300 kit zooms! (And I don't use a vertical grip either. Plus the D300 is quite a few oz. lighter than the D700, to top it all off...)

But, the 70-200 2.8's are amazing lenses and if you can handle the weight, price, and size, (and if you need the extra range on DX, or if you shoot FX) ...then they're a great option. Just doesn't work for me.

Now that Sigma just announced a stabilized 150mm 2.8 macro, I think I'm going to have the ultimate setup for the rest of my career- Sigma 50-150 2.8 on the D300, for daylight and action conditions. (Also like the extra focus point spread on the D300) ...And then the D700 plus a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS for the really dark ceremonies where an 85mm prime isn't close enough. And I'll never have to carry a lens over 2 lbs!

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

mpaulie wrote: »

UPS just dropped it off, wow this thing is massive!

IMG_0457.jpg

Definitely have to get used to not holding this thing.

After a couple years I just couldn't bring myself to do it without a monopod. Depending on the event venue, I'd highly suggest one.

Being strong is one thing, but you can still hurt your shoulders / back no matter how much you work out...

=Matt=

jonh68

digger2 wrote: »

why would you want to carry all that weight around? On a wedding?

Because you are getting paid to do the wedding and the 70-200 vr I is one of the best lenses in regards to event photography because of iq and focus accuracy. I would not get the sigma 50-150 for weddings when getting a 150 prime and 50 prime would give better results.

Weigth is a relative thing for me. I shoot my sigma 120-300 handheld and my 70-200 feels light in comparison.

Foques

^^
+1

Besides, some of us love the weight of the glass..