Too many choices!!! Help with new telephoto selection, please.

I have reviewed the threads here, and they create more questions and uncertainty.

On Sunday afternoon, I was shooting in a church with sunlight coming through the windows. My wife's orchestra was performing and she wanted some shots of her and others taken during the performance (so no flash). My body is a D600 FX.

My lens was a Sigma 70-300, 4.5-5.6. No VR/OS/VC etc., shooting at the max 300mm. The results were disappointing, so now I'm on the hunt for either a faster lens, VR, or both. VR alone may well have been enough to cure the blurs. I should have pushed the ASA higher than 1600.

Options (so far) and some thoughts on each:

To keep the full 300mm zoom ability:

Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR $425 local on Craigslist. No more light, just VR. Should hold value. (The Tamron version that was well-reviewed here by JH Foto is more expensive new.)

Nikon 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR $625 local on Craigslist. No more light, just VR and extra convenience of 28-70 range added. Should hold value. Some online reviews are great for this lens, but I see here that some members think the IQ is marginal.

Nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR $750 on Ebay from a reputable seller I have bought from before. (Added on aroy's suggestion.) Same light, more zoom, plus VR.

Going down to 200mm, but getting more light:

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII $2,300 new. Top of the line pro lens, 4x more light, best new VR. Will lose some value as used.

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR $1,150 used on Craigslist local. 4x more light, and original VR. Should hold value for a few more years at least.

Nikon 70-200 f4 VR $1,400 new. $1,100-$1,300 used Ebay. 2x light plus VR. (But at this price I would rather get the used 2.8)

Nikon 80-200 2.8 $450 used local. 4x light, no VR. Loss of 300mm range, no VR, but 2.8 at a good price!

You guys have more experience, and I have never owned any of these lenses. Going north of $1k means I have to die 30 days sooner than my retirement planner expects. But if I'm going that high, I'd probably get the used 70-200 2.8 VR. On the other hand, the 80-200 looks like a good value, but no VR. I'd rather have light than VR, however, if I later get to shoot some fast action. A thread here says this lens is slower to focus.

ETA: Just writing this down helped me narrow it down. I'm still interested to see what others have to say would be the best value in this bunch.

I have shot in those tough conditions,, most of the time,, not that far, that the 80-200 2.8 is a good choice, I have that lens, and have used in tough lighting conditions.

I also carry primes,, and will try to get a bit closer,, liking the 80 to 105 lens range,,


a lot comes down to technique,, tripod or really a stable platform,,


here is a hand held baseball night game



using the lowly 80-400 lens,,

you are right,, better to push the ISO up, but good photo technique,, should make up for most issues..

tripod, remote release,, even mirror up mode,, keep the shakes down.

There is a Sigma 80-400 4.5-5.6 with Optical Stabilization for sale local at $660. Tripod and remote would not have worked in my situation.

That's a great shot, particularly since your shutter speed was high enough to almost freeze the ball and bat.

Blade Canyon said:

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII $2,300 new. Top of the line pro lens, 4x more light, best new VR. Will lose some value as used.

Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR $1,150 used on Craigslist local. 4x more light, and original VR. Should hold value for a few more years at least.

Click to expand...

Of those listed, one of these two.

I'd be all over the used one for $1150 assuming it's clean and well cared for.

...

The Nikon 70-200 f4 is excellent, I really like the size and internal focus/zoom.

If I wanted a 2.8, I'd go with the newer Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, it is also excellent.

Rick M said:

If I wanted a 2.8, I'd go with the newer Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC, it is also excellent.

Click to expand...

That's $1,250 on sale at 42nd Street Photo right now. You think it's better than the Nikon VR1?

the old Nikkor lens build quality really was a significant step up over the 3rd party,, if any doubt,, look at the old 80-200 2.8 or the old 300 mm F4,,, but the latest
generation of Nikkors are not built nearly as tough, so maybe the build gap as closed, so that I would perhaps choose sharpness over brand.

although,, I am still prone to pick the Nikkor.

Blade Canyon said:

That's $1,250 on sale at 42nd Street Photo right now. You think it's better than the Nikon VR1?

Click to expand...

I have not shot with the VR1, I'd check DXO, but I believe the new Tamron is sharper than the older Nikon. Not sure how 42nd undercuts manufacturers prices, but there is a reason.

I shot a church at the weekend with auto ISO upto 6400 using an F4 lens on a D800. They came out well after suitable processing. Therefore exploit your camera ISO capability as the D600 will do a great job here. My auto ISO is set to a shutter speed of 1/2x focal length for good handholding.

If you then feel a lens is required get a nikon 70-200 2.8 vrii as the vri is not great on FX.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm with the Fish. The Nikon 70-200 is awesome, new or used. VR1 or VR2, although I haven't owned the first version. I owned the 80-200 dual ring prior to the VR2 and it is very nice. Don't know if I'd like a push-pull version, which might be the used one you're looking at. Back to the VR2 - so you die 30 days earlier, you'll die having owned the most popular pro Nikon tele zoom made (and it's great for portraits!).

Just so you know. The 70-200mm vr1 will vignette on full frame bodies.

I just shot a concert at ISO 800/1600 with my D3300 and 35mm F1.8 with most of the shots at F4 or more, and the shots were excellent. The best value for money is the 300mm F4. It can shoot wide open, and with a D600 ISO 1600/3200 will give you excellent IQ.

In case you need Zoom, then the 80-400 is a serious contender. The 70-300 in all its avatars, has an average IQ and lacks sharpness at the long end (and that is where you want it most).

Okay, I edited the original post to include aroy's suggestion of the 80-400.

I own both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 VRII. Both great lenses and the F4 never let me down. I just upgraded to the 2.8 to gain the extra stop of light for night games and wrestling matches. I will say that there are slight differences between the 2 and I give the edge to the 2.8. It is faster in the aperture sense, the focusing seems slightly faster and the bokeh at 2.8 is what I am really excited about. If you have shot youth sports then you know you can't pick your backgrounds, well at 2.8 it doesn't matter because its blurred/blown out and not as distracting as it was F4.

I had the 70-300 VRII, nice lens never let me down but was slower than the 70-200's and it was soft at 300 which drove me crazy when shooting distances hand held. Shooting my sons sports does not allow a tripod and a monopod is slow, so I hand hold and maybe the 70-300 would have been better on the long side with a tripod/monopod, maybe not. Anyway I sold the lens because the 70-200 f4 replaced it and it wasn't needed anymore. Also the 70-300 5.6 at night was not fun to deal with all of the noise.

If you have high enough resolution from your camera you can get by with the 200 focal length and crop on the computer which is what I do most of the time and the pictures are nice and clear.

I also wanted the 2.8 so I can use a TC, which I just got and its the 2.0 so I have yet to play with it. The way I see it is if the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2.0 TC results in better IQ over the 70-300 then its a win win for me as it will be a 400 focal length at f5.6 on the long end. I know some report softness on the long end but that remains to be seen.

At this point between the Nikon lenses I would rate them like this. 70-200 f2.8 VRII, 70-200 f4, 70-300 VRII. I can't speak to the TC yet and nor can I speak about the other lens choices.

I would suggest renting if you still are not sure but I will say that I dont regret the 70-200 f2.8 even though it was huge chunk of change. It should last me a lifetime if I take care of it.

Hope some of this helps because it took me a little over a year to finally get the f2.8.

Also, this reminds me I need to get the f4 posted to sale on here.

The push for the 70-200 2.8 VR seems to be winning, though I would buy the VR1, not the double-priced VRII. I'm meeting the seller tomorrow to see it and, if it's okay, buy it.

I did investigate the vignetting issue, and it seems like something I can live with.

Thank you to all of you who took the time to give your opinion. I'll post pics this weekend.

Blade Canyon said:

The push for the 70-200 2.8 VR seems to be winning, though I would buy the VR1, not the double-priced VRII. I'm meeting the seller tomorrow to see it and, if it's okay, buy it.

I did investigate the vignetting issue, and it seems like something I can live with.

Thank you to all of you who took the time to give your opinion. I'll post pics this weekend.

Click to expand...

I looked into the VR1 and could have lived with it, but decided to go with the VRII for a deal that i got. The only issue that I heard of was fall off on the corners. I checked with a user on this site and he didn't indicate it was an issue for him. I think if the lens is clean and has no issues then you won't regret it. Hope it works out for you, I have heard its a great lens too.

Blade Canyon said:

The push for the 70-200 2.8 VR seems to be winning, though I would buy the VR1, not the double-priced VRII. I'm meeting the seller tomorrow to see it and, if it's okay, buy it.

I did investigate the vignetting issue, and it seems like something I can live with.

Thank you to all of you who took the time to give your opinion. I'll post pics this weekend.

Click to expand...

I tried a used vri lens and it didn't impress me too much so I returned it. The vrii is simply better glass but you pay a premium for it. I bought it originally for DX but moved to FX so it's still the right solution.

I previously compared my wife's 70-300 against the 70-200 vrii. I did it controlled on a tripod. The resolving power of the 70-200 was so much better I could crop the pictures to the same view as the 70-300 and the image was still better. She now has a 70-200 2.8 vrii as well and sold the 70-300. That was an expensive test that I did !!!

I also use it with the 2x teleconvertor viii and it's pretty good but becomes a 400mm f5.6.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That's exactly the kinds of hands-on comparo I was hoping to find here. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to plunk down $2,400 right now. I'll go $1,200 on the VRi, then maybe later I will trade it and spend the difference to get the VRii.

Having owned both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 VRII. I'd say you'd be better served with the 70-200 f4.

I lusted after the extra stop and in hindsight I'm not sure it was justified.


I don't think you'd miss the extra stop and the AF is still lighting fast (D7100).

Close focus, the f4 is better than the 2.8 (either version).

Cee Fish said:

Having owned both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 VRII. I'd say you'd be better served with the 70-200 f4.

I lusted after the extra stop and in hindsight I'm not sure it was justified.


I don't think you'd miss the extra stop and the AF is still lighting fast (D7100).

Close focus, the f4 is better than the 2.8 (either version).

Click to expand...

[MENTION=20480]Cee Fish[/MENTION], IQ wise I understand the the f4 and f2.8 are on a par however that stop means a few things to me, albeit I don't claim I thought about it when I purchased it.

It means the autofocus will work better in low light as faster lenses always do on a like for like basis. I don't know how the F4 performs in this respect but the AF on the 2.8 is often quoted as the benchmark to aim at.

When I put my 2x teleconvertor on I can still shoot at f5.6 and this lens is very good wide open. In fact shoot it at F4 and it's really starting to sing. I don't know how it the F4 version performs wide open by comparison.

The other thing for me is that I can shoot wildlife at 1/1000 sec at f2.8 and ISO 1600 on my D7100. With the f4 I'm either at 1/500 sec or ISO 3200. The last point is a big one for me, especially in dull and miserable UK.

For people shots the DOF at 2.8 is a thing of beauty, although for what I use it for this is more of a bonus than a major cost justification.

I'm not suggesting that the F4 is a bad option as it has great IQ, it's much lighter and it's easier on the wallet, I just think it's worth discounting the points above first.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD