Poll - which 70-200? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Poll - which 70-200?

sachkan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Poll - which 70-200?

On the one hand Nikon f4 and fantastic reviews. On the other Tamron f2.8 also very well received.
The VR and the VC on both evidently work very well. The price is about the same
So, third party and heavier, double the light & 77mm filter or Nikon quality,lighter & 67mm filter?
Any comments or reasoning would be appreciated. Thanks for your input.

Feb 18, 2013 at 08:47 AM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Poll - which 70-200?

Haven't shot with the Tammy - how much does it weigh?

I just replaced my (heavy but excellent) Nikon 80-200 AF-D (2-ring) with the Nikon 70-200 f/4. Went out shooting yesterday and love the weight, balance and focus-speed (and very quiet). Haven't had a chance to really look at the pix, but my first test-shots were really sharp and nice.

The f/4 is pretty much designed for the D600, so even without holding the Tammy, I vote f/4. You've got plenty of good ISO range.

Feb 18, 2013 at 03:09 PM

Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Poll - which 70-200?

This is puzzling me. The lenses are similar but NOT the same. Either you do need f2.8, or you don't. Only you can answer that. My answer for myself is a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1.

Kent in SD

Feb 18, 2013 at 03:26 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Poll - which 70-200?

Two23 wrote:
This is puzzling me. The lenses are similar but NOT the same. Either you do need f2.8, or you don't. Only you can answer that. My answer for myself is a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1.

Kent in SD

Max aperture isn't the only feature that could/should determine whether a lens is "the right one", at least for most of us enthusiasts...

Feb 18, 2013 at 03:36 PM

sb in ak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Poll - which 70-200?

What kind of things do you shoot?

Feb 18, 2013 at 04:37 PM

sachkan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Poll - which 70-200?

Two23 wrote:
This is puzzling me. The lenses are similar but NOT the same. Either you do need f2.8, or you don't. Only you can answer that. My answer for myself is a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1.

Kent in SD

As you yourself stipulate these lenses are similar. I don't know what "needs f2.8" means. If you were looking for a 70-200 and both seemed good to you which would you choose? F2.8 opens up possibilities, but then so does ease of use, portability, reliability, longevity, and filter compatibility. The question here is not really puzzling.

Feb 18, 2013 at 05:42 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Poll - which 70-200?

It depends on what you're using it for. I shoot landscapes and have no need for f/2.8 --- I view the added weight and bulk of the 70-200mm 2.8 to be a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Feb 18, 2013 at 06:16 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Poll - which 70-200?

sachkan wrote:
Two23 wrote:
This is puzzling me. The lenses are similar but NOT the same. Either you do need f2.8, or you don't. Only you can answer that. My answer for myself is a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1.

Kent in SD

As you yourself stipulate these lenses are similar. I don't know what "needs f2.8" means. If you were looking for a 70-200 and both seemed good to you which would you choose? F2.8 opens up possibilities, but then so does ease of use, portability, reliability, longevity, and filter compatibility. The question here is not really puzzling.

Most people ask this question because they are looking for opinions on which lens to buy. Your question is indeed puzzling because you asked the question without giving more information about what you intend to use the lens for. It's a bit like me asking you if I should buy a Mini Cooper or a Ford F150 without giving you any information about what I need the vehicle for.

I personally went with the 70-200mm f/4 VR because I don't want or need the added bulk of the 2.8 version. I shoot landscapes, and even if I had the 2.8 version, I probably would never have a need to shoot it at f/2.8. Even shooting it at f/4 is a stretch.

Feb 18, 2013 at 06:22 PM

edl415
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Poll - which 70-200?

I had the older version Tamron 2.8 which had good build quality and excellent IQ but very poor AF on my D700. I currently own the Nikon f/4 which has even better IQ and greater portability than any 2.8 version. The portability, 5 year warranty, reliable AF and great IQ is what led me to buy the Nikon over the new Tamron. I even considered the Nikon VRII 2.8, but tested one and found it too heavy for my taste.

Having owned both 2.8 and 4 versions of this FL, I concur with Kent's opinion. If you've used both you'll know which one you want.

Feb 18, 2013 at 06:27 PM

sachkan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Poll - which 70-200?

I'll use the lens mostly - but not only - for people/events, and less for landscapes. When I used Canon I progressed from f4 to f2.8 and was impressed with the difference. (Still, the weight bothered me.)

And just as I am about to spring for a Tamron VC, I am told that today's Nikon f4 is not what f4 used to be and that it might do me just fine. So I asked the question.

Feb 18, 2013 at 06:49 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Poll - which 70-200?

f/4 is still f4 in terms if light and depth of bokeh. I assume you're talking about the ability to keep higher hand-held shutter speeds with VR.

Feb 18, 2013 at 08:07 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · Poll - which 70-200?

M635_Guy wrote:
Two23 wrote:
This is puzzling me. The lenses are similar but NOT the same. Either you do need f2.8, or you don't. Only you can answer that. My answer for myself is a Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR-1.

Kent in SD

Max aperture isn't the only feature that could/should determine whether a lens is "the right one", at least for most of us enthusiasts...

I agree with Kent. Certainly, max aperture isn't the only feature to determine what to buy, but if you know that you want/need f/2.8, then how could you possibly consider an f/4 lens? Even though I don't like the cost, size, and weight of the 70-200 vr, I know that I will frequently use max aperture. So, the f/4 version is out, for me.

Seems to me that an "enthusiast" would know the benefits and compromises of both lenses and which would be needed for his work.

Kerry

Feb 18, 2013 at 08:20 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Poll - which 70-200?

Kerry Pierce wrote:Seems to me that an "enthusiast" would know the benefits and compromises of both lenses and which would be needed for his work.

Kerry

I'm pretty sure I do - and I chose the f/4.

For me, the additional isolation offered by f/2.8 wasn't worth it. With VR, I don't need f/2.8 as much to trade off in hand-held low-light to avoid bumping the ISO. Most of my portraiture with that lens was shot at f/4 to get the whole head in focus. If I need more isolation/bokeh than what the f/4 can provide, I've got an 85 f/1.8. In his case, he's got terrific ISO performance with a D600.

So what about f/2.8 means he should pay the weight/size penalty?

I don't know the OP, so I'll speak for myself as an enthusiast. I'm not a pro. Most of my photography is part of something else: family time, a vacation, a car show, a fraction of a weekend. I'm not a pro that carries around a rolling suitcase of gear. While I liked the sharpness, pro-build and low-light capability of the 80-200, the weight and bulk found it often left out of the bag.

I took the f/4 on my walk-around in Charleston this week, and it carried perfectly. I guess I'll occasionally miss f/2.8, but what good did it do me when it wasn't in my bag?

Edited on Feb 18, 2013 at 11:58 PM · View previous versions

Feb 18, 2013 at 08:51 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Poll - which 70-200?

I don't disagree, certainly. That's the point that I, and I think Kent, were trying to make. You buy the lens that is best suited to your needs. I could be wrong, but I don't think that anyone is saying that you have to buy an f/2.8 lens in order to be a real photographer.

Kerry

Feb 18, 2013 at 09:00 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Poll - which 70-200?

I guess my question is what exactly does "needing" f/2.8 mean?

Outside of a slight difference in isolation, what are we giving up?

Feb 18, 2013 at 09:08 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Poll - which 70-200?

M635_Guy wrote:
I guess my question is what exactly does "needing" f/2.8 mean?

Outside of a slight difference in isolation, what are we giving up?

The difference in subject isolation may or may not be of significance, but it is a valid point of contention. For me, the overwhelming difference has always been the differences in exposure. VR can take care of some camera shake issues, but it can't take care of the stop of difference to be had in shutter speed.

For me, it's worth putting up with the negatives, to make sure that I've done everything possible to get the cleanest image I can, with a shutter speed that negates OOF issues due to subject movement.

Now, if you still don't understand what it means to "need" an f/2.8 lens, then I'll have to bow out because this is the best that I can do.

Kerry

Feb 18, 2013 at 09:19 PM

Two23
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Poll - which 70-200?

sachkan wrote:
I don't know what "needs f2.8" means. If you were looking for a 70-200 and both seemed good to you which would you choose? F2.8 opens up possibilities, but then so does ease of use, portability, reliability, longevity, and filter compatibility. The question here is not really puzzling.

The way I decide which lens (or whatever) to buy is to base it on if it will create the images I want it to. From my own experience I know that when photo'ing bride coming down the aisle (or newly married husband & wife heading back up the aisle for the door), I want f2.8 to isolate them better from the crowd. I also know that some churches are pretty dim when a wedding is done at night, and I'd rather open up one stop to f2.8 than dial up ISO (or worse, slow the shutter speed.) Either a lens etc. can deliver the images you want it to, or it can't. You start by analyzing the image, not the photo gear. If I mostly shot in daytime and hiked difficult terrain, usually shooting at f8, then I would know I did not need f2.8. In any event, I certainly would have the answer as to which lens to buy after thinking carefully about the kinds of images I typically take. I.e., either I need f2.8 or I don't. If I do need it, f4 won't work for me. If I don't need it, why pay extra $$ and carry a bulkier lens? The lenses are similar, but NOT the same.

Kent in SD

Feb 18, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Chaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Poll - which 70-200?

Ben Horne Wrote:
I view the added weight and bulk of the 70-200mm 2.8 to be a hindrance rather than a benefit.

I couldn't help but chuckle a little when I think of the heavy, cumbersome LF gear you truck into the most remote wilderness.

At any rate, keep on truckin' because we sure admire your work, Ben!

Feb 18, 2013 at 11:17 PM

M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Poll - which 70-200?

Kerry Pierce wrote:The difference in subject isolation may or may not be of significance, but it is a valid point of contention. For me, the overwhelming difference has always been the differences in exposure. VR can take care of some camera shake issues, but it can't take care of the stop of difference to be had in shutter speed.

For me, it's worth putting up with the negatives, to make sure that I've done everything possible to get the cleanest image I can, with a shutter speed that negates OOF issues due to subject movement.

Now, if you still don't understand what it means to "need" an f/2.8 lens, then I'll have to bow out because this is the best that I can do.

Kerry

You make it sound like you're shooting with film. Maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding about exposure, but if you need to gain a stop of shutter speed (or preserve a stop), isn't dialing up the ISO going to give you the same exposure? Wouldn't ISO 200 @ f/2.8 @ 1/100 be equivalent to ISO 400 @ f/4 @ 1/100? I understand there might be some (likely very slight) noise and that the subject isolation would be slightly less.

I get that there are upward boundaries - you're only going to live with a certain amount of ISO bump or shutter speed (I struggle with the second more than the first for what I do), but I think I'll be fine from an exposure perspective with f/4, and as I said above I've got the 85 f/1.8 if I need isolation for portraits.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here - I'm trying to articulate my thinking and learn. I just have a natural reaction to absolutes like "must be f/2.8 or else" for non-professional shooters.

For me, if I ever go back to a f/2.8 pro zoom, I'll save a little longer to have the ~$400 needed to get a used Nikon VRII over a $1500 Tamron (even though the early reviews look very good).

Two23 wrote:The way I decide which lens (or whatever) to buy is to base it on if it will create the images I want it to. From my own experience I know that when photo'ing bride coming down the aisle (or newly married husband & wife heading back up the aisle for the door), I want f2.8 to isolate them better from the crowd. I also know that some churches are pretty dim when a wedding is done at night, and I'd rather open up one stop to f2.8 than dial up ISO (or worse, slow the shutter speed.) Either a lens etc. can deliver the images you want it to, or it can't. You start by analyzing the image, not the photo gear. If I mostly shot in daytime and hiked difficult terrain, usually shooting at f8, then I would know I did not need f2.8. In any event, I certainly would have the answer as to which lens to buy after thinking carefully about the kinds of images I typically take. I.e., either I need f2.8 or I don't. If I do need it, f4 won't work for me. If I don't need it, why pay extra $$ and carry a bulkier lens? The lenses are similar, but NOT the same.

Kent in SD

Kent, I totally get it for you. If you're a pro doing weddings, all the considerations change. If I was a pro, I'd have the pro f/2.8 lens, even if it is a pound and a half heavier. If I was a birder and wasn't carrying a range of other lenses, the weight wouldn't the main factor.

Edited on Feb 21, 2013 at 02:21 AM · View previous versions

Feb 18, 2013 at 11:52 PM

Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Poll - which 70-200?

M635_Guy wrote:

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative here - I'm trying to articulate my thinking and learn. I just have a natural reaction to absolutes like "must be f/2.8 or else" for non-professional shooters.

You're not trying to be argumentative? Really? Exactly where has anyone said that the lens "must be f/2.8 or else", for anyone other than themselves? I can't find a single soul that has said or even implied that, yet you're stating it as if it is fact.

Given that amateurs probably buy a dslr because of the higher capabilities and IQ, I'd also like to know why the needs of a professional would be any different than a non-professional, especially if they are shooting the same kind of subjects and desire the same level of performance and IQ?

Kerry

Feb 19, 2013 at 01:34 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end