Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2014 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4

  
 
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I am in the need for a 70-200. I have already decided on the 2.8 version. However, coming from Canon recently, I don't know enough about the options to make what I would consider an educated choice.

In Canonland, they fall like this:

- Canon 70-200 V1: Still competitive, but not as sharp as the other options
- Canon 70-200 V2: Considered the absolute best, top-of-the-line
- Sigma 70-200 OS: Nice lens but not as sharp as the others at 2.8, really needs to be 3.5/4
- Tamron 70-200 VC: 95% of Canon's V2 without the price tag and weather sealing

Is it safe to assume that these thoughts would translate over the same way in Nikon? I'm really leaning towards the Tamron, but with used prices of the Nikon VR2 running only about $300 more, that makes it a tough choice.



Feb 17, 2014 at 08:18 AM
Chris Court
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


On this side of the fence we have the (out of production) VR1 and (current) VR2 versions.

The main complaint about the VR1 is corner softness on full frame bodies. The VR2 has better sharpness across the frame, uprated VR system and handles teleconverters better, however some dislike the lens due to a fairly strong tendency to "focus breathe", meaning that at close focal distances, the focal length of the lens decreases, down to something like 135mm at maximum zoom, MFD. This is not something that bothers me, personally, but something to be aware of.

There are also several, older, 80-200 variants. The 80-200 2.8D is still in production (I believe) as a lower-cost alternative fast tele zoom. It is a much more basic lens than either 70-200, with no stabilisation and focusing coming from the camera body rather than having a built-in AF-S motor. Aside from those caveats, it's still a good, solid choice. There is also a (discontinued) 80-200 AF-S which has a certain following, although I have no personal experience with this lens.

As with anything in life, your choice will likely come down to how much you are prepared to spend. By almost every metric, the VR2 is the best lens in this class on Nikon bodies. If you are using a crop sensor body, the VR1 is still an excellent choice. I have no experience with the off-brand equivalents, but I gather that they are all somewhat lacking in various areas (sharpness, build quality, weather sealing, stabilisation, focus speed etc.), so I would personally be inclined to stick with Nikon for this particular focal range.

Hope this helps!
C



Feb 17, 2014 at 08:51 AM
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


Thanks Chris for the education and opinions.

I actually forgot to mention that it will be used on a D610, maybe a D7100. 90% of it's use will be wide open portraits outside and some landscape. I don't really do any wildlife with this range, but it is possible I could.

For the other glass I have, right now it's just a 24-120. I am selling my 200-400 V1, going to add a 70-200 and probably a 150-600 as a summer tie over for bears. I will be adding a 600 by next waterfowl season.



Feb 17, 2014 at 09:08 AM
Jason_Brook
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


If you're okay with slight corner softness, go with the VR1. Fabulous lens that can be had for a song these days. The corners have never bothered me.


Feb 17, 2014 at 09:34 AM
Kell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


"90% of it's use will be wide open portraits outside and some landscape. "

why are you married to the 2.8? for this application the F4 is the way to go imo..save some money and size/weight..it'll do what you need more than fine and is perfect ergonomically on a D610...I've had both and I shoot outdoor sports as well as what you are shooting and the F4 works great on my 610...I don't miss my 2.8 at all

if it's bokeh you're worried about because of F4 here's a pic at F4 200mm...if you want to blow it out more you can destroy the BG with a 85 1.8 G for $400 new, both these lenses new will cost about the same as a used 70-200 2.8 VRII...anyway...fwiw






Edited on Feb 17, 2014 at 11:05 AM · View previous versions



Feb 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


Kell, The Tamron, where I am leaning, is the same price as the f/4 after adding a tripod ring. Given that situation, I would get the 2.8 over the f4. But, at your recommendation, I'll reconsider it and swing by my local store to get some samples.

The filter size also creates a slight issue for me.



Feb 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Kell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


got it...just wanted to provide an opinion from real world experience..obviously all the stuff you're looking at will do the job, good luck


Feb 17, 2014 at 11:04 AM
kpc011895
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I got a used 80-200 AF-S on here a while back and it produces amazing images! If you don't need VR then it's pretty darn cheap to pick up a used one.

Ken



Feb 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


Jason_Brook wrote:
If you're okay with slight corner softness, go with the VR1. Fabulous lens that can be had for a song these days. The corners have never bothered me.

*************************************************


Jason! something you and I agree on!

In all seriousness, the VR1 is a great lens. On DX format, it makes better sense over the newer VR2 as you will see little differences and the cost is 1/2 the newer lens.

On FX, there is the corner sharpness issue, which if you are using it for landscapes may be an issue, but for portraits, can be a plus.

If it were me, the VR1 on DX and the VR2 on FX. I have the VR1 because I shoot DX.



Feb 18, 2014 at 01:06 PM
Joseph.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


The best value in the used market right now are VR1 and 80-200 2-ring (about ~$1150 and $550 respectively) Both are really good lenses. The VRII is better, but it has its own nuances, particularly the 'focus breathing' at close distances.

I actually prefer the ergonomics and bokeh of the VR1. The VRII is better (sharper, renders deeper colors) but the VR1 isn't too far behind.



Feb 18, 2014 at 01:16 PM
Luftwalk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I know that there's a benefit of staying all Nikon, but I would strongly advise you to give the Tamron a serious consideration. I have one and the IQ is simply amazing. Sharp at all focal lengths and wide open. The VC works incredibly well, 4 stops is very achievable. The AF is fast, but not as fast as on a VR2 (I would say it is about the same as on a VR1, still fast enough).

As for weather sealing...Tamron claims weather sealing to a some degree. It does feature a rubber gasket ring around the bayonet for instance. The build quality is also very good.




Feb 19, 2014 at 04:25 AM
diggedy
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I cant speak for the others but I have the sigma 70-200 os and I dont have sharpness issues wide open. That being said, for portraits I tend to stick to around f4-5 anyway.
Anyway I love it, fast AF and very sharp.



Feb 19, 2014 at 06:58 AM
JakeB17
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I prefer the Nikon VR1 as well. I'll be sticking with mine until the VR3. It was mostly the focus breathing on the VR2 that bothered me the most.


Feb 19, 2014 at 08:03 AM
Gaylon Holmes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


DontShoot wrote:
The best value in the used market right now are VR1 and 80-200 2-ring (about ~$1150 and $550 respectively) Both are really good lenses. The VRII is better, but it has its own nuances, particularly the 'focus breathing' at close distances.

I actually prefer the ergonomics and bokeh of the VR1. The VRII is better (sharper, renders deeper colors) but the VR1 isn't too far behind.


Concur. I've owned both and the VR II is technically the better lens but I prefer the oldie goldie.



Feb 19, 2014 at 01:42 PM
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


Bought the Tamron after testing several at my local store. Brand new $1350.


Feb 19, 2014 at 02:18 PM
rand17
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I always by Nikon Lenses


Feb 25, 2014 at 03:08 PM
LocoPhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


For portraits you may want to compare that Tamron to the Sigma 70-200 OS...I'm not familiar with the blades of the Tamron, but the 9-bladed iris of the Sigma really does create some creamy bokeh that is uniquely flattering more so than the Nikon 70-200/4 and the Tamron pics I've seen, and even the Nikon.

If you were a landscape person I'd say buy the Nikon 70-200/4, but for portraits I think you did well with the Tamron, but mayyyy have preferred the Sigma if you were to shoot them side by side. You'll be happy though, as you really can't lose, especially since much of photography is about adapting to the lens quirks and making a photo between the boundaries of what a lens can do.

Personally, I never buy a brand because of it's name, I buy a lens because of it's qualities meeting my needs, which Nikon doesn't always do, nor does any company, which is why every lens has to be researched individually, based on needs.



Feb 25, 2014 at 03:30 PM
adamba100
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


I have had both VR I and VR II. Keep VR II, I like the results better. In 90% used for shooting portraits on D600 and D7100. I'm very happy with it.


Feb 25, 2014 at 05:58 PM
Chris Court
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


bipock wrote:
Bought the Tamron after testing several at my local store. Brand new $1350.


Well the price is right. How about a review?

C



Feb 25, 2014 at 06:21 PM
bipock
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 70-200 opinions - NOT 2.8 vs 4


Thus far, AF is spot on and instant. Lens is sharp wide open and the VC is superb and silent. All as I expected based on the Canon version.


Feb 25, 2014 at 09:21 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.