I'm almost sure, but I'm not sure about the 70-200mm

I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm

Hi guys,

Mi budget has changed and now I have a lot more to spend, so I'm able to buy greater equipment.

Camera: D7000 for around 620 bucks (Refurbished)
Small Zoom: (Tamron's New 17-50mm 2.8 VC), which seems to be a great all around lens. (650 bucks)
Macro (I tke a lot of close-up pictures so I thought i could buy a macro): Tokina 100mm 2.8 that seems to be awesome and it's not too expensive ($399)
But the Tele?

I have the cash to go and buy Tamron's new 70-200mm VC that is almost as good as Nikon's 70-200mm VRII. My doubt is that it costs twice as much as the old 70-200mm, but is it worth it to spend that much in the all-new features. I definitely want that fast AF, as my 70-200mm F/4L was FAST, and VC is almost mandatory for handholding a heavy lens. But are those 740 dollars more worth it? With that money I can buy a D7100 instead, which is not vital for me, but I consider it a nice Camera.

Should I get the VC or the Non-VC version? If in the next years the price of the VC version drops, I will lose a lot of money when reselling it. May that happen also with the 17-50mm VC?

Another option is to buy a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF for $1000. Is that a good buy? Or should I buy one of the Tamrons?

Thanks!

Re: I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm

I'm sure the VC version has more use to anyone. But as someone who has the 1st version of Nikon's 70-200. I never use it. So if faced with the decision to get a lens with it or with out. I think I would save the money and opt out of getting it with.

Re: I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm

You may want to also consider the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens. I use it on my D7000. You can get an idea of the Sigma 17-50 and D7000 combination capability that I was able to obtain through their use in the D7000 forum located in the "Your Best D7000 Photos" thread. In addition, a brand new Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens can be purchased in the $360 price range on Ebay from Japan. I purchased one. You may not have seen the detailed review and lens comparison on Youtube posted below. Last, I also shoot with a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 which photos are posted in the thread mentioned above. You should be able to find a good 80-200mm f2.8 for much less than $1000 dollars in the U.S.

Get the NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G, if you can afford it.

Is the sigma better than the tamron regarding image qualitu? The 80-200 seems to be very sharp, but it doesn't have VR. VR might not be useful when you have a lot of light, but its compalsary when taking low light pictures during hand holding. Should I get the nikon 80-200mm or pay around 400 dollars more and get the 70-200mm VC? What about the 17-50mm, is the sigma better than the tamron?

joaco2208 said:

Is the sigma better than the tamron regarding image qualitu? The 80-200 seems to be very sharp, but it doesn't have VR. VR might not be useful when you have a lot of light, but its compalsary when taking low light pictures during hand holding. Should I get the nikon 80-200mm or pay around 400 dollars more and get the 70-200mm VC? What about the 17-50mm, is the sigma better than the tamron?

Click to expand...

From what I have read the Tamron is much sharper and in some cases some have reported the Tamron is sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. The down side to the Tarom from what I have read is the slow focus speed which could cause one to miss shots. However, the Tamron is much faster than the 80-200 from my trying the lens in local camera shops. I'm looking to replace my 80-200mm for shooting football sports that take place often in the evening with low light. I'm hoping Sigma comes out with an upgrade of their 70-200mm F2.8 OS HSM to see how it will compare to what already available.

If you buy the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII you will never regret the purchase as the image quality is stunning.
The Nikon 80-200 f2.8 is also capable of producing stunning results BUT remember that the majority will be AF so slower focusing ... there are a few of the later AF-S versions around but generally at a price that is not far short of the 70-200 VRI so maybe not the best option.
If your primary concern is economy rather than focusing speed then the Nikon 80-200 is a no-brainer.

Is the 80-200mm better in overall than the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 non VC? Im considering to buy a D7100 instead of the D7000 and get one of this two lenses instead of the Tamron VC

As you are going for DX body, have you thought of the Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR DX IF-ED for your tele-zoom? You could also consider going for the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G VR ED to cover both lenses, then add the Nikkor AF-S 40mm f/2.8G DX Micro for close-ups?

Gorf said:

As you are going for DX body, have you thought of the Nikkor AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR DX IF-ED for your tele-zoom? You could also consider going for the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G VR ED to cover both lenses, then add the Nikkor AF-S 40mm f/2.8G DX Micro for close-ups?

Click to expand...

I dind't consider to abuy aone of those lenses you've mentioned because i'm looking for pro grade lenses than can match the level of my old L lens, I want to buy a 70-200mm because I really like them when using a DX body. I'll also get a good wide zoom (sigma 17-50mm OS), and a marcro 100mm 2.8. I'm skeptical about the 70-200 and I don't know which one has the best bang for the buck.

Which of the <$1500 options is the best? thanks!

joaco2208 said:

Which of the <$1500 options is the best? thanks!

Click to expand...

Well that depends. How you define "best"? Do you mean the lens that's sharpest in the center or at the corners, has the least amount of CA, the fastest auto-focus, the least vignetting or something else altogether? I'd suggest your peruse the DXOMark Labs Lens Comparison Tool, check the specs of the lenses you're interested in and decide for yourself which one is the "best" for your needs.

....

joaco2208 said:

Is the 80-200mm better in overall than the tamron 70-200mm 2.8 non VC? Im considering to buy a D7100 instead of the D7000 and get one of this two lenses instead of the Tamron VC

Click to expand...

I would say yes, the Nikon 80-200 is better than the Tamron non VC alternative as both are similar AF - the latest Tamron 70-200 is very good though and some suggest better than the Nikon 70-200 VRII but for me I would choose the Nikon VRII.

joaco2208 said:

I dind't consider to abuy aone of those lenses you've mentioned because i'm looking for pro grade lenses than can match the level of my old L lens, I want to buy a 70-200mm because I really like them when using a DX body. I'll also get a good wide zoom (sigma 17-50mm OS), and a marcro 100mm 2.8. I'm skeptical about the 70-200 and I don't know which one has the best bang for the buck.

Which of the <$1500 options is the best? thanks!

Click to expand...

Understood. My thoughts are that getting full pro lenses with an enthusiast camera may not give you the full advantage of the lens. For instance, I would tend to match the superb Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II IF-ED with the D810 body to take the greatest advantage of the lens. Remember also that a pro lens is quite heavy, but very well built. The 70-200 f2.8 weighs 1540g, the D7000 weighs 780g.

Never compromise on glass ... get the best you can afford!

No matter which tele zoom you get, you might consider a grip for the 7000. The kit will feel lopsided without one. Even with a standard pro zoom it'll feel unbalanced without the grip, IMO.

Re: I'm almost sure, but I'm skeptical about the 70-200mm

These threads about the Nikon 70-200 VRII always make me chuckle. The nay sayers always suggest something else wins in the sharpness tests blah blah blah. The funny thing is they are often the ones who don't have one. All I can say is this. I own one and if you can see a sharpness improvement in some other 70-200 you're a better man than I and you must enjoy viewing pixels. I'm not saying it's sharper than others as I haven't tried them, but I know what sharp is and this is a benchmark. It also focuses very quickly and can be used to hammer nails in as a result of the metal body. Finally, I could sell my two year old lens for a few hundred pounds less then I bought it for, so all in all I'm a happy chap.

I made the mistake of lending my 70-200 to my sceptical wife who couldn't see why it would be so much better than her 18-200. We now have one each!!

On the 17-50 side of things I can confirm that the Sigma is excellent in terms of image quality. It does cause the preview scroll to step rather than scroll which is irritating but the image quality more than makes up for it. Also, the manual focus ring turns as you autofocus. However, considering the cost and performance we are happy with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD