Nikon glass worth the $$$?

J

jpragsdale

Senior Member
Hi everyone, quick question regarding lenses in general. I've started looking at full frame glass and have noticed significant price differences between Nikon and 3rd party glass. For example, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 is $2400 on Amazon while the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is $1250 and the Tamron is $1500.

Is the Nikon glass worth the premium price?

Thanks in advance!
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
jpragsdale said:
Hi everyone, quick question regarding lenses in general. I've started looking at full frame glass and have noticed significant price differences between Nikon and 3rd party glass. For example, the Nikon 70-200 2.8 is $2400 on Amazon while the Sigma 70-200 2.8 is $1250 and the Tamron is $1500.

Is the Nikon glass worth the premium price?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
The answer is never as simple as Yes or No. It really depends on the lens in question and how comfortable you are with third parties. For the 70-200 2.8s I would choose the Nikon over the others if money were no object. Sigma is making some fine glass and, from I've read, has improved their repair service so I won't hesitate buying from them. However, the 70-200 is not their best and the Nikon and Tamron should outperform it. I actually had this decision to make recently and guess which of the three I bought: none of them. I went with the new Nikon 70-200 f/4 because it's lighter, less expensive, and received rave reviews for image quality. I didn't need the 2.8 so the f/4 was the lens for for me. And I haven't been disappointed.
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
As you may know, with any "brand" name, you are going to pay more. If you pay more, does it mean that it is exponentially better? Yes and No. I can tell you for fact that the Tamron 70-300 USD VC is equal to Nikons offering and the Tamron costs less. As has been stated many times, Sigma and Tamron are really doing an exceptional job on some of their lenses. They are giving Nikon a run for their money. Just do all the research you can do and if you can, try out the lenses. Nikon is not the only kid on the block anymore.
 
J

jwstl

Senior Member
jpragsdale said:
That makes sense, thanks.

So the biggest reason for wanting the 2.8 is for low light, do you find the f4 does well in low light?
Click to expand...
It focuses very quickly and the new VR really lets me hand hold this at amazingly low shutter speeds. There are situations where 2.8 is a must because it lets you shoot at higher shutter speeds for stopping action but I don't shoot sports so I chose weight over 2.8.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
jpragsdale said:
That makes sense, thanks.

So the biggest reason for wanting the 2.8 is for low light, do you find the f4 does well in low light?
Click to expand...

What are you shooting that is low light and is it worth the extra money to get it. The difference is 2.8 and 4 is less than 1 stop. Not that much in reality.

Also you are shooting with a D3100 DX. Are you planing to upgrading soon? Otherwise you really don't need full frame glass.
 
D

Dave_W

The Dude
The thing with high-end photography gear is that you get what you pay for. The real question you've got to answer is whether you need what you get.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Dave_W said:
The thing with high-end photography gear is that you get what you pay for. The real question you've got to answer is whether you need what you get.
Click to expand...
Damn Dave... You be waxin' all philo-soffical on us! Next I'll be snatching the pebble from your hand as you tell me, "Time for you to leave."
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
Like jwstl, I opted for the Nikon 70-200 f4 for it's IQ and size. If I really needed a 2.8, I would have gotten the new Tamron VC, it is excellent. If I made a living with photography, I would buy the Nikon 2.8.
 
Last edited:
S

STM

Senior Member
I have never put anything but Nikon glass on any Nikon I have ever owned and I honestly cannot imagine that ever changing. Brand snobbery? NO. There of course is the compatibility issue, you know that anything Nikon makes is going to be 100% compatible with any body. But NO ONE, not Canon, Pentax, Minolta or even Zeiss, has matched or surpassed the mechanical excellence of the all manual AIS Nikkors. EVER. I am dismayed to say the least at some of the questionable at best mechanical CRAP I have seen come out of Nikon of late, the worst of which is probably plastic bayonet's (WTF are you thinking Nikon???), but I know without a doubt that 25 years from now, if I am still even taking photos, my 30 year old AIS Nikkors will still work as flawlessly as they do today or did when I got them. How many of today's lenses will still be in use 25 years from now? I am guessing very few if any.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
The question you have ask is a regular one,the answers will probably leave you just as confused as you where before asking. The best lens is often the one you can afford as in my case,i just bought the sigma 120-400 the latest Nikon 80-400 will out perform it but I just cant afford that sort of money.

mike
 
J

jpragsdale

Senior Member
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
What are you shooting that is low light and is it worth the extra money to get it. The difference is 2.8 and 4 is less than 1 stop. Not that much in reality.

Also you are shooting with a D3100 DX. Are you planing to upgrading soon? Otherwise you really don't need full frame glass.
Click to expand...

I've actually just upgraded to the 7100. My kids play a lot of indoor sports with poor lighting so I figured the more light I can get the better. Since I just got the 7100 my wallet needs to recover a bot before I upgrade my glass, but it's never to early to start dreaming and researching.
 
K

Krs_2007

Senior Member
50 or 85 is a really good start for low light. I used my 85 for basketball this past season with really good results and these smaller primes can be found at a really cheap price. The 50 1.8G is a couple of hundred dollars. The 85 1.8G eluded me and I went with a 85 1.8D which will work on your camera as well. For indoors you will have to play with the ISO and shutter speed to compensate for the poor light of indoor sports. I did shoot some with the kit lens when the lighting was better and was pleasantly surprised. No they wouldn't make the cover of SI, but I liked them.

Any of the 2.8 lenses are going to be a great investment and will last a long time, but they wont produce great pictures unless you really know how your camera works.

Take lots of pictures and use the EXIF data to learn from.
 
Top