If you had to choose...

Which would you buy for shooting everything from a lot of live bands/concerts, to nature, to portraits, to models, and everything in between?

- NIKON AF-S 70-200MM F4 G ED VR

- Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM

- TAMRON 70-200MM SP 2.8 DI VC USD

All are relatively the same price, all paired with a D7000

(All are about $1000 less than the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII)

Thoughts?

J

interesting trade-off , Nikon Quality build vs 3rd Party faster lens.

The Nikon F4 has a strong rep for sharpness, and well, I know that I throw my telephoto shots away for lack of sharpness,

So,, I think I would trade the faster light/lower build quality, and take the sharper image, less fast Nikkon lens.

of the two vendor lens, I believe Tamron has the slightly better rep for sharpness.

Also,, the Nikkor will hold its value for longer used.. you could buy the lens new for 1300 dollars or so,, and even 4 years later,, if you take care of it, sell for a 1000. even 8 years year,, and sell for 800-900 by my guess. Nikkor lens just hold their value.

- NIKON AF-S 70-200MM F4 G ED VR 1st
- TAMRON 70-200MM SP 2.8 DI VC USD 2nd

It sounds like you need a Nikon 85mm f1.8G to me.

I've owned none of them, so can't comment on any aspect, but will admit that the Nikon will likely hold value better.

As for the Sigma vs. Tamron, I love this site for its ability to side-by-side zoom lenses at various settings and see how it impacts IQ on each lens, and how the IQ of one compares to another. It's tested on a Canon DX camera, but I'd assume the same would be true on a Nikon. I've preset it for you for these two lenses. Mouse over to move from Sigma to Tamron. You can change to any lens at the top.

Thanks everyone!

One of the reasons I want the 70-200 is I shoot a lot of concerts where I am forced to shoot from the sound board in a dimly lit room. So I'm far away with bad light and moving subjects (tough).

My goal is to eventually have and carry a 50mm 1.8 (have), a 24-70mm 2.8 (want), and some form of 70-200mm.

I have the 50 and an 18-105 now, so I want longer and faster first before middle and faster.

Since your main camera and criteria for this exercise is the D7000, let make some observations.

I recently (last year) upgraded to the D7000 from a well used D90. Since we talk a lot about lens sharpness, let's talk about that for a minutes. One of the features of the D7000 over the D90, and the lesser cameras is the Focus Fine Tune feature. One of the past problems of the D7000 has been many reports of back focus issues... some that exceed the range of the Focus Fine Tune adjustment...

I recently bought the SpyderLensCal target to methodically calibrate and adjust all my lenses... I was moderately shocked at the amount of adjustment I had to apply to my lenses... I'm getting old and blind, so rely more on the auto focus feature of my cameras than I did in the past.

I have a couple of Tokina lenses. The D7000 does not recognize those lenses in its Focus Fine Tune feature. It apparently only sees chipped Nikkor lenses... My Tokina lenses calibrate with a bit of back focus, but unfortunately I'll have too turn off the auto focus and manually focus them because there's no adjustment using the Focus Fine Tune feature with non-Nikon lenses...

If you rely on auto focus, then you may give a higher priority to the Nikon lenses... especially with the D7000

If I were shooting concerts I would want the 2.8 for those dimly lit rooms. Another option that gets you 2.8 and good Nikon glass is the 80-200 2.8. It's a fine lens-especially on DX-and can be purchased for less than the 70-200 f/4. You do lose the VR and a bit of range however.

let's talk about your photo op situation of low light,, first the Nikkor does have VR,, so,, you should be able to shoot at F4,, and bump the ISO up to say 1600, and still on a D7000 get decent noise, and very sharp images..

Now let's say you use one of the 2.8s instead. it also has optical stablizer, but the dof is narrower, so locking in the primary subject at 2.8, will be hard, but if the sharpness is less at 2.8 then by time you add sharpening, are you to the same point in noise? and have less dof of field to play with.

Hard to say... I use a 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 tank for those shots, another sharp lens no VR,, but personally,, in those situations, I would work out a tripod, and well,, VR has to be turned off on tripods, so,, the old tank does just fine. (and cost less! ).

gqtuazon said:

It sounds like you need a Nikon 85mm f1.8G to me.

Click to expand...

I love mine! It's not on the Jason's list, though.

jayradio said:

Thanks everyone!

One of the reasons I want the 70-200 is I shoot a lot of concerts where I am forced to shoot from the sound board in a dimly lit room. So I'm far away with bad light and moving subjects (tough).

My goal is to eventually have and carry a 50mm 1.8 (have), a 24-70mm 2.8 (want), and some form of 70-200mm.

I have the 50 and an 18-105 now, so I want longer and faster first before middle and faster.

Click to expand...

If doing concerts stick with primes and good ones, I did a shoot for BHP yes they are a mining company but the band was Jebediah this was my first shot I had with them and I had a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8. Here is a shot of what I achieved. These were taken with my D80.

Maceo Parker - pit shot
1/50 - ISO 2000 - 105mm - f5.6


Sharon Jones - pit shot
1/50 - ISO 800 - 34mm - f4.2


Shot with my 18-105 from photo pit right in front of stage.

Blue Rodeo - sound board
1/15 - ISO 1600 - 48mm - f4.8


Shot with 18-105mm from sound board of local casino show room.

Ok use what you think best, you asked for advice and I offered you an option. Looks like you are happy with what you have.

No I'm not I was just showing what I've achieved with one of my current lenses.

The 18-105 is a decent lens close up with a lot of light on the subject... But far away (soundboard shot) it really really starts to suffer.

I ended up buying the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on Friday...here are a couple sample shots from the weekend...and wow, the 2.8 is "twice" as heavy!? yeesh.

Low light at:
Exposure0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperturef/4.0
Focal Length70 mm
ISO Speed2500
Hand held



Full light at:
Exposure0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperturef/4.0
Focal Length150 mm
ISO Speed400
Hand held

I was going to suggest the Nikon and am glad you got it. Given the different situations you will be shooting in, you have to think about the times when you do have good light and overall the experience from your work and time will be well served by the quality of the Nikon glass. The other lenses just won't be anywhere near as sharp wide open.

The Nikon.

Think about the difference.. Is 1 stop really going to make that much difference in any shot? Especially in a D7000.

If you're going to do lot of concerts, then I'd go for one of the f/2.8 lenses.

jayradio said:

Which would you buy for shooting everything from a lot of live bands/concerts, to nature, to portraits, to models, and everything in between?

- NIKON AF-S 70-200MM F4 G ED VR

- Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM

- TAMRON 70-200MM SP 2.8 DI VC USD

All are relatively the same price, all paired with a D7000

(All are about $1000 less than the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII)

Thoughts?

J

Click to expand...

I have a question regarding my new toy (70-200 f/4G)...most times I shoot in 'aperture priority' mode on my D7000 (allows me to play with the iso in low light easily and quickly)...with my new lens being a constant aperture through the whole range...how does this affect my choice of 'mode'?

Aperture priority mode was my first step out of 'auto' so I'm still learning...be gentle

J