Nikon D90, which 70-200mm 2.8 Lens

M

Meds

Suspended / Banned
Messages
45
Edit My Images
No
Hi Guys,

This is only my second post so Hello All :)

If any of you are members of the OCUK forums you may know me from there. Basically Im a amateur photographer to say the least, around 18 months experience with the D90 being my first camera.

Im now in the market for a 70-200mm 2.8 lens and its now a choice between the following:

1)Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II - £515
2)Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR I - Second hand £600 ish
3) Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II New, £1600 odd

Now really and truly my budget is £500 odd, but as an amateur who primarilly takes pictures of the kids at home and when were out and about would I notice the difference by going for option 3?

And also out of option 1 and 2 what one would you guys go for?

Thanks in advance

Meds
 
you will be very lucky to get a nikon 70-200mm vr1 for that price they seem to go for £900
also have had a siggy 70-200mm its was great but the nikons are in a different league, well sharp wide open.
also the new siggy 70-200mm os is about the £900 mark, but i would still pick the nikon.
oh and welcome to the forum.
 
Last edited:
As Scott says, you'd be doing really well (or buying a nicked one) to get a Nikon 70-200 VR for £600, you could comfortably get a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 on budget and it's far better than anything else you'll get for that sort of money...
 
Thanks Guys.

I think I'll end up trying to sweet talk the mrs into allowing me to get a VR2, as the nikon's seem to be much more highly recommended that the siggys.

Just one last question, you guys believe that even a noob like myself would notice/benefit from the VR2?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
the mk1 will be fine on your camera the mk is suppose to be better for full frames,
i have the mk1 and love it so sharp.
f2.8 wide open on d700, and its even sharper on my d300. no p&p.
SJB_0560.jpg
 
Last edited:
Have you considered 80-200? I have 2 rings version, I love it on my D7000
 
The Tamron 70-200 is supposed to be very, very good optically but is let down massively by slow AF apparently.

Siggy 70-200 was a corker optically but I was let down by re-occuring backfocussing issues. Good for the money if it's a good copy.

Nikon 80-200mm AF-D is great. I had the later non- push/pull one but sold it to get a 70-200mm VR1 solely for the VR. For £500(ish) the 80-200mm AF-D is the one
 
specialman said:
The Tamron 70-200 is supposed to be very, very good optically but is let down massively by slow AF apparently.

Siggy 70-200 was a corker optically but I was let down by re-occuring backfocussing issues. Good for the money if it's a good copy.

Nikon 80-200mm AF-D is great. I had the later non- push/pull one but sold it to get a 70-200mm VR1 solely for the VR. For £500(ish) the 80-200mm AF-D is the one
Click to expand...
will learn to read.
 
Last edited:
wow, I was editing one of my post above and you guys have already responded loads :)

I dont mind getting the 80-200, my main problem to be honest is that I'm weary of second hand stuff and getting a bad lens without a warranty...

Scott that picture is very sharp, with good detail etc....

I think Im gonna have to try and convince the mrs to let me get the VR2, failing that try and find a good second hand VR1.

And if shes really having none of it then the Siggy.

How to the 80-200 Nikon compare to the 70-200?? are they of a similar quality?
 
I have a 2 touch 80-200 that I use on my D90. Can't fault it and it's a third of the price of the 70-200vr2 (got myne for £450). Most reviews claim the 80-200 is sharper into the corners than the newer 70-200 lenses - I'm not a pixel peeper so I couldn't say for sure. I definitely get images which look as sharp as my 12month old 24-70.

It's quite heavy (as is the 70-200) and I always make sure I have my battery grip on the d90 when I use it to help balance it up a bit.

Ken Rockwell has a comprehensive review. Seriously worth a look rather than blowing your budget by over a grand! You could always spend the money you save on some nice primes or another 2.8 lens?
 
Stu that definately makes sense from a budgetry perspective, cause I guess if I can get 1600 hundred authorised, I could buy the second hand 80-200 and then use the rest of the cash to buy some other lens :)

Theres 2 variations of the 80-200 right? which one should I be going for if thats what i end up buying??

Thanks
 
all the nikons are built like tanks, the 70-200mm are weather sealed to, not sure about the 80-200mm, the siggy has hsm which will make it quieter and faster to focus than the 80-200mm unless you get a afs version, but the 80-200mm is sharper wide open, and the 70-200mm is super fast af quiet and has vr.
there is loads of decent 70-200mm about, theres a couple in the classidieds on here in mint condition.
heres one.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=300756
 
Last edited:
Go for 2 ring version, not push / pull. It is extremely well built, focus is just OK, not the fastest but definitively not slow. Go for this one mate, and spend the rest on a decent primes.
These are lenses for life!
 
scottthehat said:
i thought you said the 80-200mm was a beter lens then the 70-200mm was:D
Click to expand...

Ha - yep, typing at 100mph so it reads bad..... :D

To clarify my point, IMO the 80-200mm is the best of the £500(ish) offerings, with the 70-200mm VR being the one if VR is required and you have the dosh :thumbs:

Man, I must stop typing without reading :)

Slightly OT, doesn't the VR2 display some anomalies with regard to actual focal length being different to stated focal length? Read something about it somewhere (probably TP) but my mind is so full of junk I could have dreamed it....
 
Last edited:
This forum rocks!!!!

The good news is that I now have 2k ish Authorised :)

The bad news is I dont know what to do with it, in total these are the things I need:

1) 70-200 or 80-200 lens
2) Tripod £150 odd
3) Screen Calibrator £90
4) Home studio lighting gear £200 odd

So in principal I could buy any of the lens you guys have suggested. ( My manhood is pointing towards the 70-200 VR2 New, my brain says the 80-200mm Second Hand)

LOL
 
Meds said:
So in principal I could buy any of the lens you guys have suggested. ( My manhood is pointing towards the 70-200 VR2 New, my brain says the 80-200mm Second Hand)

LOL
Click to expand...

Split the difference - get a 70-200mm VR mk1.... £900(ish), which leaves you well over a grand to play with ;) :D
 
Last edited:
Meds said:
This forum rocks!!!!

The good news is that I now have 2k ish Authorised :)

The bad news is I dont know what to do with it, in total these are the things I need:

1) 70-200 or 80-200 lens
2) Tripod £150 odd
3) Screen Calibrator £90
4) Home studio lighting gear £200 odd

So in principal I could buy any of the lens you guys have suggested. ( My manhood is pointing towards the 70-200 VR2 New, my brain says the 80-200mm Second Hand)




LOL
Click to expand...


2k?!
OK, here we go - what Seb would do...

I would buy 80-200: awesome lens, cheaper, without compromising quality.
Buy the best tripod you can. I wouldn't go carbon fibre. I would rather spend the money on better head.
Screen calibration devices: go for used ones, most of them been used once - twice. I got my Spyder 2PRo for £35 delivered -> more funds for tripod.

Home studio... what about 2in1? Look at Elichrom Ranger Quadra... Amazing piece of kit! Battery powered, with modelling light, great on location and in the studio. I would love to have it :)
 
Last edited:
Expensive. But it would give you mahooosive advantage. Food for thoughts :)

Sent from my Desire HD using TP Forums
 
Sebastian said:
2k?!
OK, here we go - what Seb would do...

Screen calibration devices: go for used ones, most of them been used once - twice. I got my Spyder 2PRo for £35

Where did you get that?? Been looking for one for under £50 for ages and they never seem to come up.

Home studio... what about 2in1? Look at Elichrom Ranger Quadra... Amazing piece of kit! Battery powered, with modelling light, great on location and in the studio. I would love to have it :)
Click to expand...

Ranger quadra..... Drool
 
what i would do £950 on 70-200mm vr, £100 spider pro 3 calibration.
£150 on tripod(well i would not but you want one) which leaves £800 for lighting buy a sb900 or 600 or 700, and the rest on studio lighting, flash will be handy for just general photos inside, bounce the flash works great. and the 70-200mm is fast and awsome for capturing kids on the go.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies guys, tbh Im not sure if I'll get the Tripod straight away.

So far the definate is the Spyder Pro.

This might be overkill for a noob with a D90, but my birthday is also coming up soon, so Im thinking

I buy 70-200mm, then get mrs to buy me 24-70mm 2.8 :)

As you guys have probably noticed by now, Im all over the place :)

Is it still possible to buy the VR1 brand new?

I already have an SB-800, so from the original budget I could have maybe 300 to spend on studio lights if i bought the VR2 and Spyder
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top