Sooo, which 70-200 2.8?

SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
VR II is out of budget like a race horse, VR1 I read rather mixed reviews about and fact that it was made in pre-FX digital days, so the choices might be between Siggy or Tammy. Would probably let my 70-300 go since it will be inferior and redundant, so ~350 budget boost will also help quite a bit.

Else, I looked through some reviews and comparisons of 24-70s, and I just don't see them being as useful as a 70-200, even indoors, given the chunk of money they cost. Would be cheaper to just get a 50 or a 35 prime for low light, general indoor stuff.
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
You always need a 50mm, but I would say that the choice between the 50 and the 35mm would depend on which of you bodies you were going to use in low light conditions. And, at any rate you should have the fx version of whichever lens you get to use on both of your bodies. I think this would be a more useful use of your $.
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
Had recent handle of VR I it is killer.

Hoping to grab it cheap from a local pro friend who wants to upgrade to VR II.

Planning on demo of latest Tamron tho, for similar money as the used Nikkor might be tough to say no. It is all about the deal...
 
Thumper_6119

Thumper_6119

Senior Member
Contributor
I have a used Nikon 70-200mm VR I, and it is awesome. (I didn't know that it wasn't FX. It doesn't crop in the viewfinder like my DX lenses do on my FX body). I got it for more than $1000 less than a new VR II, and it was in like new condition. Works well with the 2x teleconverter too.
 
Last edited:
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Thumper_6119 said:
I have a used Nikon 70-200mm VR I, and it is awesome. (I didn't know that it wasn't FX. It doesn't crop in the viewfinder like my DX lenses do on my FX body). I got it for more than $1000 less than a new VR II, and it was in like new condition. Works well with the 2x teleconverter too.
Click to expand...

The VRi can be used on FX without it cropping any images. From what I've read, images are softer around the outside edges so it works better on DX than FX; however, it is considered a full-frame lens.

Having owned the Sigma OS, the Nikon VRii is much better. It may have been my particular copy of the Sigma OS, but I'd test drive a Tamron VC before committing to a Sigma OS. I used my Sigma for theater photos so I used the far end of the zoom quite a bit (close or at 200mm). The focus was soft, and the DOF sure seemed to be far less than it should have been. For me, the Nikon VRii far surpasses the ability of the Sigma which is why I suggest checking out the Tamron.
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
I bought a used Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VRI and shoot it on a D600. The results are so good I have decided to spend the big bucks to get the 24-70 2.8 also, looking now for a good deal on a used one, even though I have a 24-85 VR.

The 70-200 is a very heavy lens, however. I left it home on a recent trip to Manhattan, opting to carry a 28-300 that was lighter and more versatile. We walked between 6 and 10 miles per day.
 
B

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
hrstrat57 said:
If you have a couple of minutes could you post a couple pics in this thread taken with that combo?

TY!
Click to expand...

Here's another just shot this weekend. Too much shine on the forehead because my speedlight was bounced off a low ceiling. This was truly a snapshot, because she was sitting on the sofa as I was walking through the house to shoot something else. This is also cropped down to 3k x 2k pixels out of the original 6k x 4k pixels. I had to apply some skin smoothing because the details on the skin were a little too sharp.

Printed an 8X10 for the parents and it looked great.
ALK.jpg
 
Last edited:
P

PapaST

Senior Member
Rick M said:
Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC would be my choice.
Click to expand...

Ditto this.

It would be a toughy but the Tamron would likely win out for me over the VRi. Tamron being a little more compact, rates a bit higher and 6 year warranty would be factors for me. I'd also be concerned over the condition the VRi came in. Not sure how those two lenses stack up on price but even if the VRi came in $200 cheaper I'd still go with the Tamron. Good luck.
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
if I didnt need the extra 10mm I would love getting an 80-200AFS. that was my first love with a zoom lens. sold my POS sigma for a huge loss to get rid of it as fast as I could.

the VR is supposed to be very good in the Tamron. its no slouch in the nikon. I hate VR though. makes me nauseous.

Resale value and less QC issues and best of all AF speed accuracy and the nikon colors FTW.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
rocketman122 said:
if I didnt need the extra 10mm I would love getting an 80-200AFS. that was my first love with a zoom lens. sold my POS sigma for a huge loss to get rid of it as fast as I could.

the VR is supposed to be very good in the Tamron. its no slouch in the nikon. I hate VR though. makes me nauseous.

Resale value and less QC issues and best of all AF speed accuracy and the nikon colors FTW.
Click to expand...

But how is quick, low-light with the older AF system? Would be using this for events and nothing waits for your lens to hunt even a bit.
 
T

TBonz

New member
I agree...I have owned both copies of the 70-200 and, while I had switched to the VRII before I got my first FX body, both are very nice lenses and can work with FX bodies. I think the VRII is faster focus, but I used the VRI for sports with a D90 and D7000 successfully. The 24-70 is a great lens as well!
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I've noticed that Tamron is a 77mm while VRi is only 67. For any lens in general, the bigger the glass, the better; and for a loooong barrel with internal zoom, I'd imagine the more light it can let in the better, no?
 
R

rocketman122

Senior Member
Nikon 70-200VR1 is 77mm not 67mm. its a big lens. long but slender compared to the thicker barrel VR2 or 80-200 AFS which is my favorite of all time. t-stop on all the nikon zooms is not what is marked. usually about f/3.2 aprx, even though its marked as 2.8.

speed is very fast but depends on your camera to lock. some cameras are better than others, even though its AFS. the af module used is the difference.
your low light might not be the low light that I consider low light so I dont know. but the Groom and bride slow dance is no problem when the lights are very dim.

only reason I didnt move to the VR2 was the close focusing capability. not possible to compose extreme closeup (forehead to chin tight shooting landscape wise)

all three lenses youre considering are excellent lenses. there is just very minute differences between them that you will only see when zooming and looking for it. in prints, you wont notice the difference and most likely, as with most of us, your technique is what will hold back the lens from showing its real potential. hand holding pretty much kills 15-20% of its real potential.
 
H

hrstrat57

Senior Member
Has anyone in this thread shot or handled the nikkor f4? Thoughts, comment particularly background blurring at f4?

perhaps there is discussion in another thread I have missed. The price on A new one is very enticing!!
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Also starting to consider, 50 1.4D (maybe?) and then Tammy 150-600 to really get a nice reach on wildlife. I know that going from 300>200 will kill and and all birding for me, but 50 might just be wide enough for those dim indoor shots. Should be miles better than 3.5 on my 24-85, won't break my bank, and won't limit what I can shoot. I've done moving on my feet plenty, so won't be anything new to me, although if I ever try concerts I can definitely kiss any decent shots goodbye unless I can magically be in the pit and crop later.
 
Top