Which 70-200 f2.8 lens (Nikon)

Peter69 said:
I have logged all sales of 70-200 f/2.8 lenses sold on ebay since xmas.
Click to expand...

:D Why on earth would you do that?


Anyway back on track. What is the best 70-200 f/2.8?

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2

This is THE lens bar none.

Second choice

A close fight between the Nikon VR1 and the Siggy O.S

The Rest

In order of preference
Nikon 80-200 AF-S f/2.8
Nikon 80-200 AF-D Two touch f/2.8


Anything else just a waste of time, pure muck.
 
:bang:

Get your focus breathing in around ya tommy lol
 
Last edited:
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...


Not a chance ... one went on Ebay the other day for £500 and that was a steal imo (I kicked myself for missing it). Average price is around £600 for an OS model.
 
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...

Missed this :D

What a complete and utter load of nonsense.

If you can get me good nick 70-200 O.S for £400 I will take 10.

If you can get me a VR2 for a grand I will take 50.

Make a killing selling them on.
 
TonyNI said:
:bang:

Get your focus breathing in around ya tommy lol
Click to expand...

They pretty much all do this to a certain extent a bit of a non issue really. Only problem I have with mine is that it is too damn sharp.
 
Soda Farl said:
They pretty much all do this to a certain extent a bit of a non issue really. Only problem I have with mine is that it is too damn sharp.
Click to expand...

And that its 135mm at 200mm close focus distance lolz
 
1.4m I believe compared to 1.5m for the VR1, I cannot believe you dismiss focus breathing as "a bit of a non issue" for you maybe but for quite a few it certainly was hence the reason I and others returned back to a VR1 . Two very different lens imho
 
Last edited:
gpa said:
1.4m I believe compared to 1.5m for the VR1, I cannot believe you dismiss focus breathing as "a bit of a non issue" for you maybe but for quite a few it certainly was hence the reason I and others returned back to a VR1 . Two very different lens imho
Click to expand...

+1
 
There was a very good review on these lenses in this weeks Amateur Photographer. Worth a read if you can still pick a copy up.
 
I know you said 2.8 but have you looked at the new 70-200mm f4?..gets some pretty good reviews!
 
Soda Farl said:
Enjoy your soft corners son. The vr2 out performs the old lens in every other aspect so yeah its a non issue for me.



Lolz at Mr.third party glass.
Click to expand...

STAFF EDIT: Comment removed

I'm glad you have now confirmed it's a non issue "for you" rather than the global "I speak for all photographers" line you posted before...... Having shot with the VR1 for several years I had a Vr11 for about a month, so I tested them side by side. I can live with the slight softening at the corners given the improved focal length the VR1 gives me, it's a blinding lens only slightly improved in the VR11... With only 135mm ish at close distances it's no surprised the slight softening in the corners has been removed in the VR11.... I shan't say anything more and bow to your superior knowledge.... At least the OP is now aware of the issue and can research it himself and make his own mind up.

Oh and you may have a long lost son out their you are dying to find, but I'm not him.
 
StuartH said:
I know you said 2.8 but have you looked at the new 70-200mm f4?..gets some pretty good reviews!
Click to expand...

I have had a glance at the f4 but I'll be wanting to grab every bit of light I can. Fast moving objects in poor light is going to be hard. They also selling for £1,100

I've tried with my 55-200 and SB900 and I get a reasonable image (no where near professional quality). The extra 2.3 stops will make all the differance.
 
gpa said:
At least the OP is now aware of the issue and can research it himself and make his own mind up.
I have and believe the softness on a DX camera is very slight., although its not an issue on the choosen Sigma.

The differance I see between the VR2 & the Sigma it the same as getting an extra 0.1s on a top fuel car - loads of extra cash for very little gain
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
TonyNI said:
Says tommy with loadsa gear and pictures still as amateur as your old d3000
Click to expand...

My pictures are amateur, photography is just a hobby in the main for me. Whatever gear I have I bought purely for enjoyment. I suspect that if your pictures were as good as you think they are, that you would not be working full time in a shop with me.

I have seen a fair amount of the stuff you shoot and yes I would agree you are a better photographer than me. However even when I have not been impressed at no point have I ever criticised the images you have taken.

The vast majority of the photographs I take are of my girls and are taken as nothing more than a record of my family life and to share with my family. Regardless of what you think around there technical quality I am more than happy with them.
 
Peter69 said:
gpa said:
At least the OP is now aware of the issue and can research it himself and make his own mind up.
Click to expand...

I have and believe the softness on a DX camera is very slight., although its not an issue on the choosen Sigma.

The differance I see between the VR2 & the Sigma it the same as getting an extra 0.1s on a top fuel car - loads of extra cash for very little gain
Click to expand...
Hi Peter and there lie's the problem, The "is it worth it" question. It may not be to some and it may be to others depending how deep you get and how anal you become about getting the very best out of a given lens... I've no experience of the Sigma's OS version but had for some time a Sigma 70-200mm hsm11 macro for the small stuff so I was able to compare directly with my VR1..... Taking the macro stuff out of the equation, my observations were as follows. The Nikon was better at rendering colour and contrast, the Sigma was a tad soft until it hit F4, sharpness wise at close distances there was little in it, the Nikon still ahead but not by a great deal but over distance and 200mm the Nikon was better....AF was slower on the Sigma. Now none of these were "Massive difference" but noticeable if you look hard enough, however you'd expect that really given the cost difference.... in the real world it boils down to are those differences worth the extra cost to you ??? I'm certain you would be happy with what ever choose you make. Why not rent a couple of lens for a day and see for yourself..... may pay dividends in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Soda Farl said:
My pictures are amateur, photography is just a hobby in the main for me. Whatever gear I have I bought purely for enjoyment. I suspect that if your pictures were as good as you think they are, that you would not be working full time in a shop with me.

I have seen a fair amount of the stuff you shoot and yes I would agree you are a better photographer than me. However even when I have not been impressed at no point have I ever criticised the images you have taken.

The vast majority of the photographs I take are of my girls and are taken as nothing more than a record of my family life and to share with my family. Regardless of what you think around there technical quality I am more than happy with them.
Click to expand...

I'm only keeping you going son. I love your Lego shots! ;)

Also had I the option to go full time I wouldn't entertain it, part time photography is more than I would ever want, loads of work for not much £££. It also sucks the fun out of it.

Your pictures are far from bad, I only say it for the same reason you keep telling me I have **** glass lol
 
Last edited:
Peter69 said:
I have had a glance at the f4 but I'll be wanting to grab every bit of light I can. Fast moving objects in poor light is going to be hard. They also selling for £1,100

I've tried with my 55-200 and SB900 and I get a reasonable image (no where near professional quality). The extra 2.3 stops will make all the differance.
Click to expand...

No worries fair enough just thought I would throw it in the mix..its also available at 995 now.
 
GPA - good points there. I found my Sigma a very 'warm' lens in terms of colour rendition and definitely as sharp as my Nikon lenses at close range. The Nikon's definitely have the edge IMO when working at greater focussing distances. I know jack about MTF charts and resolving figures of lenses so I can only go on my gut feeling and experience.

Is the difference worth it between something like a VR1 and a Sigma? I find that a hard conclusion to come to because I got the Sigma at a steal from new so the lenses I got after that (after trading in/selling) were much more palatable in terms of pricing. Like mentioned, I bought the VR1 for the VR function but these days I find myself rarely using it. But the lens is still brilliant on a D7000 and in that case, I feel every penny spent has been justified.

Everyone has their own way of justifying a purchase :)



TonyNI, Soda Farl - do you want to us to get you a room or something? Maybe save the 'break up and make up' for another, more private thread.. ;)
 
The VR1 version is now quite cheap new (£950). So if the second hand prices follow I think I'll get the VR1 version.
 
wow, how close was that to a monumental cock-up.

Thanks Twist for pointing out my blindness :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top