Which 70-200 f2.8 lens (Nikon)

Peter69

Peter69

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,013
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Cash is in the bank so now it time to buy, but which one?

It would appear I have 6 choices Sigma, Tamron or Nikkor with or without OS/VC/VR.

The reviews all point to the Sigma being the best middle ground and propably best quality/£. The Nikkors, even second hand, are strong money. The Tamron non VC is the cheapest of the bunch but reports say its focus is very slow. I have been talked out of only looking at stabalized lenses as I will be used for moving objects.

I hope you guys can spend my money wisely
 
I would say that if you can afford it, go for the Nikon. I have the VR1 and it is beast.

The old Tamron is slower to focus than the Nikon but in real world it's still good. But for moving targets probably not the best choice.

However, I did get to have a good play with the new Tamron 70-200 f2.8 with VC at Focus this week and was very impressed with it.

Focus speed I would say is on a par and from my albeit very limited tests, optically I'd say it is fantastic. That may be a good compromise.

Personally I would always go for stabilised than not if you can afford it. You always have the choice of turning VC off. You can't turn it on if the lens doesn't have it.
 
This is just my experience from my trials but had a sigma 70-200mm and it was a great lens but mine was soft at the extremes..also tried out the vr 70-200mm which is amazing but as your not looking for vr/os etc I would say go for a 80-200mm afs or afd,more or less on par image quality wise with the vr version and my 80-200mm was a step above the sigma I had
Edit to add just seen you use d5100 so the afd version wont af on your camera.
 
Last edited:
Does the 80-200 autofocus on the D5100?
 
Im quite fussy about gear, I have the Sigma 70-200 OS and its a fabulous piece of kit. Tack sharp and lovely OS. The only zoom I like! I almost wish I could fault it to justify the purchase of a VR2 but the difference for me isnt worth it. Has performed great in dimly lit churches and never missed a beat with the AF

Worth every penny
 
TonyNI said:
Im quite fussy about gear, I have the Sigma 70-200 OS and its a fabulous piece of kit. Tack sharp and lovely OS. The only zoom I like! I almost wish I could fault it to justify the purchase of a VR2 but the difference for me isnt worth it. Has performed great in dimly lit churches and never missed a beat with the AF

Worth every penny
Click to expand...

Tony how do you rate it at 200@f2.8?

I was looking to get one earlier in the year but read a few reviews about it being a bit soft until f4...
 
Phil Young said:
Tony how do you rate it at 200@f2.8?

I was looking to get one earlier in the year but read a few reviews about it being a bit soft until f4...
Click to expand...

Any shot I have taken at 200mm @ 2.8 the background as you would expect is completely bokehlicious lol. The target has always been tack sharp for me, not sure about the corners at 200mm.

If I'm being honest I only ever really shoot this lens at 2.8 so if f4 is as good as they say it must be remarkable.

It's sigmas sharpest 70-200 and easily on par with the VR1.
 
Last edited:
Phil also used it for video last week, HOLY **** was it smokin!!!
 
I had a Sigma 70-200mm Mk1 - well made, solid but the AF was iffy, even after recalibration.

Went to a Nikon 80-200mm... superb.

Moved onto a Nikon 70-200mm VR1 - awesome lens. Well worth every penny.
 
Any chance of images from the various cameras?

I believe the Sigma lens is the same in OS and non-OS unlike the Tamron which is substantially supiorer in VC
 
The sigma OS is a completely new optical design, nothing like the other versions...
 
Peter69 said:
Any chance of images from the various cameras?

I believe the Sigma lens is the same in OS and non-OS unlike the Tamron which is substantially supiorer in VC
Click to expand...

This was taken as part of a high ISO test on my D7000 using the 70-200mm VR1, so apologies for it not being amazing :)


ISO 3200 by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

Nearly wide open (f/3.5) at 200mm, bird was probably 7-8ft away:


Blackbird by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr

I'll try to dig out some other shots on this lens :)

This was taken with my Sigma 70-200mm, a non-OS model that I bought in 2008. This is a heavy crop of the original image:


Windsurfer by Pat MacInnes, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Thats great. With my eyes I see no differance i quality and there a good couple of £££ in the price. I presume the sigma is good in low light?

Its a shame no one has posted from Tamron's lens as thats a bargin if its comparable
 
By all accounts the tamrons image quality is very good and up there with the rest but only downside is the slightly slower focus.If you go on youtube search for "That nikon guy" he does a comprehensive test of all the 70-200mms nikon tamron sigma etc..quite a good watch;)
 
Peter69 said:
Thats great. With my eyes I see no differance i quality and there a good couple of £££ in the price. I presume the sigma is good in low light?...
Click to expand...

TBH, I can't remember what it was like in terms of AF speed and lock-on in low light/low contrast situations so can't comment on that.

Regarding differences in optical quality, there's a whole lot of stuff written by very particular people who will move from lens to lens to lens because of even the slightest factor that displeases them. I'm not one of them - it has to be a big issues for me to change; slight softness of edges for example isn't a big deal to me. I will admit that the Sigma 70-200mm never gave me 100% confidence that focus was spot-on, but I've used other Sigma and 3rd party lenses that have been utterly brilliant. That was the only reason why I moved to the Nikon 80-200mm and in turn, the only reason I moved to the 70-200mm VR1 was because of the VR function, which ironically I rarely use these days. I don't feel like it's been a bad set of moves though and I don't regret any of the money spent.

Obviously, exemples images are never going to match from person-to-person because there are so many factors dictating the final outcome. I've found that renting lenses has given me first-hand experience of a lens and has given me information and reassurance I couldn't have got any other way. I did that last year with the Nikon 300mm f/4, renting it for an event but I'd wanted to try it for ages - that three days made my mind up that it's an amazing lens that I WILL be buying this year. Obviously, you could be unfortunate to get a duff example that in no way matches the one you tried but that's one of those things IMO :)
 
Last edited:
No mate its not just as good. Why do people talk muck on this....
 
Agree with Tony, it's a better lens, optically it's completely different.
 
twist said:
Agree with Tony, it's a better lens, optically it's completely different.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, let's not have this delve into a ken rockwell 55-200VR omgzzz thread. The mk1 70-200 sigma is NOT as good as the OS
 
Peter69 said:
Its a shame no one has posted from Tamron's lens as thats a bargin if its comparable
Click to expand...

I had the Tamron. Optically it's great and I'd say you'd be hard pressed to fault the IQ.

But the focus is slower and the most annoying thing is it's tendency to hunt. Esp in low light situations. Frankly often it was unusable indoors as a result.

Outdoors it was great and when locked on the images were sharper than a sharp thing.
 
But I thought the 55-200 vr is just as good as 70-200 vr2?!
 
Bottom line - 70-200 VR2 best of the bunch

Nikon VR1 and Sigma 70-200 OS the second choice

Tamron 70-200 and the zillion other variants of the sigma the budget 3RD choice
 
Prices

Tamron = £599
Sigma OS = £899
Tamron VC = £1400
Nikkor VR2 = £1605
(All Uk models)
 
TonyNI said:
No mate its not just as good. Why do people talk muck on this....
Click to expand...

I have the OS and I had the MKI non OS.

My MKI was sent to Sigma, recalibrated and serviced, it came back a hell of a lot better than new and I stand by my statement that IQ wise there is very little (if anything) in it.

With regard to AF speed, build and focus accuracy yes the OS is better.
 
Peter69 said:
Prices

Tamron = £599
Sigma OS = £899
Tamron VC = £1400
Nikkor VR2 = £1605
(All Uk models)
Click to expand...

The Sigma OS seems very keenly priced.

Do you have any issues with buying used? That can bring the top end stuff (VR1 and VR2) into a more palatable price range.

The other thing that's worth considering is even though the VR2 is lauded as a better lens than the VR1, it is so because it's addressed across-the-frame sharpness and vignetting issues that became apparent when used on FX bodies. You'll not be encountering that when using a VR1 on a DX body so the gains won't be so obvious. There's also the issue of 'focus breathing' that dogged the VR2 on release....

TonyNI said:
No mate its not just as good. Why do people talk muck on this....
Click to expand...

Not muck, someone's opinion.
 
Last edited:
Image quality differences become smaller and smaller as you go up the price scale. The difference becomes much less noticeable and perhaps not noticeable at all to anyone that isn't looking for specific differences such as micro contrast, CA handling and flare etc. most clients wouldn't have a clue between the same image took with 2 different lenses.
 
Thanks guys. To me, all the images look good although the non OS pics were sharp the background ghosting of the person behind was wierd (not sure what it should be like).

My original question was Quality/£

So at thr prices I've listed I think its safe to say the Sigma OS wins.

I can't see from the images posted that the Tamro or VR2 warrent the extra £500 and £700 extra.

On a side note: the 55-200VR is sharp? Do you mean the 55-200mm f/4-5.6 AF-S VR DX NIKKOR? If so mines going back to be checked.
 
worth also considering that the VR1 and VR11 are imho completely different lens do some research on focus breathing, depending on your chosen path ie wildlife, portrait etc careful choices should be made. Personally I did not like the VR11 so went back to the VR1 as it suit my needs better.
 
It was a joke about ken Rockwell constantly whining on about kit lenses being the dogs *******s
 
specialman said:
Do you have any issues with buying used? That can bring the top end stuff (VR1 and VR2) into a more palatable price range.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with second hand but makes the differance greater. Sigma OS £400ish. Nikkor VR2 nearly always hits north of £1000. Is it really worth that much more?!
 
That's hopeful, os 550-600, non os 350-400, vr1 950, vr2 1300
 
Peter69 said:
I have no problem with second hand but makes the differance greater. Sigma OS £400ish. Nikkor VR2 nearly always hits north of £1000. Is it really worth that much more?!
Click to expand...

The VR2 is probably still too recent to have really low used prices, but I know we've had VR1s for sale as low as £850 on TP, but as you say, once you start looking used then you can also look at very cheap 3rd-party lenses and you get even more bang for your buck. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top