Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
In doubt between f2.8 and f.4(+)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="robbins.photo" data-source="post: 595510" data-attributes="member: 27043"><p>Ok, so a couple of thoughts on the subject. First, 2.8 vrs F4 - a lot of this depends on what is going to be most useful for you.</p><p></p><p>The biggest advantage to the 2.8? Better background separation when shot wide open, better AF in lowlight, and on a long enough focal length zoom lens like the 70-200mm 2.8, the ability to use teleconverters effectively. </p><p></p><p>The disadvantage? Size and weight - a 70-200mm F4 is a whole lot smaller and more manageable. Not quite as good at background separation of course, and not something you can use effectively with a 2x TC unless your outdoors in very, very good lighting. </p><p></p><p>So depending on what you shoot and where you shoot, the advantages of one may out weigh the other. They are both very, very good lenses.</p><p></p><p>Now, as to Tamron vrs Nikkor vrs Sigma...</p><p></p><p>Tamron, the non-vc versions weren't really highly regarded by most from what I've read. They had a lot of AF consistency issues.</p><p></p><p>The VC version of the Tamron is a top notch lens, again based on what I've read. I haven't personally shot it but the sample images it produces are very, very good from what I've seen and most of the folks that have the lens seem to love it. One caveat here, from the research I've done if you want to be able to use TC's, this probably wouldn't be a good choice in lenses. I've read a lot of folks who've said they love the lens but it to doesn't seem to work with any model of TC. Again can't verify that 100% since I don't own one, but it does seem to be a very common complaint.</p><p></p><p>The Nikkor - I recently purchased a Nikkor VRI 70-200mm 2.8 myself. I shot both the Sigma 70-200mm HSM I and the Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM prior to getting the Nikkor. I can tell you the image quality from the Nikkor completely blew both the Sigma's out of the water. It was better wide open than the sigma's were stopped down to 5.6 or even 8. The biggest thing though wasn't even so much the sharpness, it was the color contrast. Just a huge difference really. So was the Nikkor worth it? For me,absolutely. Again I suppose a lot will depend on how much you use the lens and what you use it for as to whether or not it's worth the extra for you.</p><p></p><p>The best part about my Nikkor? I carry two TC's - a 1.4x and a 2x. So with one lens and a couple of very light easy to carry TC's I have a 70-200mm 2.8, a 98-280 F4 and a 140-400mm 5.6. Makes for an incredibly versatile combination. So for me, yes the 2.8 is worth the extra size and weight.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="robbins.photo, post: 595510, member: 27043"] Ok, so a couple of thoughts on the subject. First, 2.8 vrs F4 - a lot of this depends on what is going to be most useful for you. The biggest advantage to the 2.8? Better background separation when shot wide open, better AF in lowlight, and on a long enough focal length zoom lens like the 70-200mm 2.8, the ability to use teleconverters effectively. The disadvantage? Size and weight - a 70-200mm F4 is a whole lot smaller and more manageable. Not quite as good at background separation of course, and not something you can use effectively with a 2x TC unless your outdoors in very, very good lighting. So depending on what you shoot and where you shoot, the advantages of one may out weigh the other. They are both very, very good lenses. Now, as to Tamron vrs Nikkor vrs Sigma... Tamron, the non-vc versions weren't really highly regarded by most from what I've read. They had a lot of AF consistency issues. The VC version of the Tamron is a top notch lens, again based on what I've read. I haven't personally shot it but the sample images it produces are very, very good from what I've seen and most of the folks that have the lens seem to love it. One caveat here, from the research I've done if you want to be able to use TC's, this probably wouldn't be a good choice in lenses. I've read a lot of folks who've said they love the lens but it to doesn't seem to work with any model of TC. Again can't verify that 100% since I don't own one, but it does seem to be a very common complaint. The Nikkor - I recently purchased a Nikkor VRI 70-200mm 2.8 myself. I shot both the Sigma 70-200mm HSM I and the Sigma 70-200mm OS HSM prior to getting the Nikkor. I can tell you the image quality from the Nikkor completely blew both the Sigma's out of the water. It was better wide open than the sigma's were stopped down to 5.6 or even 8. The biggest thing though wasn't even so much the sharpness, it was the color contrast. Just a huge difference really. So was the Nikkor worth it? For me,absolutely. Again I suppose a lot will depend on how much you use the lens and what you use it for as to whether or not it's worth the extra for you. The best part about my Nikkor? I carry two TC's - a 1.4x and a 2x. So with one lens and a couple of very light easy to carry TC's I have a 70-200mm 2.8, a 98-280 F4 and a 140-400mm 5.6. Makes for an incredibly versatile combination. So for me, yes the 2.8 is worth the extra size and weight. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Telephoto
In doubt between f2.8 and f.4(+)
Top
