Yet another which 70-200 f/2.8 thread

f/1.2

f/1.2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,424
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I know this subject has been covered many times before but I am really struggling to make my mind up on what to go for and having a hunt through old threads didn't help.

I have had previously had the Nikon 70-200vr2 and the Sigma 70-200 O.S.

The VR2 was as you would expect exceptional but I am reluctant to spent that sort of money again when for me it's a lens that will only be used occasionally. However the little Tamron 70-300vc I have now while okay is really not suitable for what I am shooting now and I am going to need another 2.8 zoom within this range. The Sigma was a decent lens and I was blown away with how good it was when I first got it, however it really didn't compare well to the VR2 and I would like to get closer to it If possible in terms of performance.

At the moment I have narrowed it down to the following lenses but am still unsure which option to go for.

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, still available as a new item which appeals but doesn't have stabilisation which could be a problem.
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR, apparently not so good on FX from what reviews I have read and only available used.
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC, seems to be a lot of build issues misaligned elements, faulty v.c etc.
 
Don't own these but have used the following a bit on both crop(D7000, D300, D200) and FX (D3X, D800E) at work.
f/2.8 said:
...
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, still available as a new item which appeals but doesn't have stabilisation which could be a problem.
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR, apparently not so good on FX from what reviews I have read and only available used.
Click to expand...
In terms of IQ very little to choose between them, the VR is just the better lens imo only because the AF allows immediate override and it's weather sealed, it also has VR which can help. From what I could see both were a tad soft in the corners wide open if you looked for it (not a issue for me), but by f4 not really much of an issue. I do like the feel of the old Nikon pro lenses though.

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC, seems to be a lot of build issues misaligned elements, faulty v.c etc.
Click to expand...
Not used this so can't really comment other than the reviews seem very positive.
 
PaulButler said:
Don't own these but have used the following a bit on both crop(D7000, D300, D200) and FX (D3X, D800E) at work.
In terms of IQ very little to choose between them, the VR is just the better lens imo only because the AF allows immediate override and it's weather sealed, it also has VR which can help. From what I could see both were a tad soft in the corners wide open if you looked for it (not a issue for me), but by f4 not really much of an issue. I do like the feel of the old Nikon pro lenses though.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback Paul did you notice much difference in a.f speed what with the 80-200 having no motor? It's not a big concern as I will be using predominantly for portraits but there will be the odd time it will be used for pet photography.
 
f/2.8 said:
Thanks for the feedback Paul did you notice much difference in a.f speed what with the 80-200 having no motor? It's not a big concern as I will be using predominantly for portraits but there will be the odd time it will be used for pet photography.
Click to expand...
I couldn't really tell much difference, but the VR felt better, by that I mean the AFD sometimes jerked when it hit focus where the VR just happened - and it was quieter too!
 
had the 80-200 AF - couldn't get on with it - D7000 had back focusing issues at the time..
Used for 5 weeks a 70-200 VR - liked it a lot.
Bought the Vr2 & love it.

I'd get the Vr1 (7-800 ish) - money well spent.
 
Tommy, having previously owned the Nikon 80-200, Sigma 70-200 OS and the Nikon 70-200 VR2 I can give you some feedback

I purchased the Canon 70-200 IS II after debating for ages over it and the Tamron, just before it shipped I cancelled the order and bought the Tamron 70-200 VC and the put the difference towards the Canon 85 L.

My experience is that it is easily as good if not better than the VR2 I owned which came from you and you know that was a good copy.

I shot a wedding recently and it never missed a single frame. Its insanely sharp at 2.8. It does vignette abit which is super easy to correct but unusually I prefer the vignette intact and dont correct it in LR.

Bokeh is beautiful and colour/contrast is superb.

The VC is incredible and I can easily hand hold 200mm 1/4 second.

Build is lovely aswell, the smallest 70-200 and possibly the lightest(though its still heavy)

I dont regret not getting the canon at all. Could have got it from onestop digital etc a little cheaper but couldnt be arsed with potential import duty so opted for DigitalRev, ordered on a friday and has it on a monday.

To reiterate I think at least my copy is better than the Nikon VR2
 
f/2.8 said:
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC, seems to be a lot of build issues misaligned elements, faulty v.c etc.
Click to expand...

Avoid like the plague - had a fellow sports photographer friend who used one for around a year, out of focus parts of the image had all sorts of strange ghosting & on some shots almost looked like he was panning at a low shutter speed despite shutter speeds of 1/2000+, there were also issues with the sharpness & DOF on some of the "focussed" parts of the image as well.

In all this he sent it back to Tamron twice to be returned in exactly the same condition & was told time and again that the lens was working as intended. He finally gave in & got a Nikon 70-200mm V2 & the quality of his images improved tenfold overnight.
 
helloimkev said:
Avoid like the plague - had a fellow sports photographer friend who used one for around a year, out of focus parts of the image had all sorts of strange ghosting & on some shots almost looked like he was panning at a low shutter speed despite shutter speeds of 1/2000+, there were also issues with the sharpness & DOF on some of the "focussed" parts of the image as well.

In all this he sent it back to Tamron twice to be returned in exactly the same condition & was told time and again that the lens was working as intended. He finally gave in & got a Nikon 70-200mm V2 & the quality of his images improved tenfold overnight.
Click to expand...

I had a very poor quality copy of the Nikon 24-70 does that mean no one buy it ever?

The copy I have is superb. If it was anything less I wouldnt trust it to charge people their hard earned money for my services.

No doubt there is stinkers out there from lots of manufacturers. Youtest it thoroughly when you get it and if its problematic you send it back in the first week or 2.
 
However if what I shot was primarily sports I would potentially have kept my order for the IS II, I am sure its servo tracking is better. I have used it on a number of portrait shoots, a wedding and tested it thoroughly and it hasnt missed a beat
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
I had a very poor quality copy of the Nikon 24-70 does that mean no one buy it ever?

The copy I have is superb. If it was anything less I wouldnt trust it to charge people their hard earned money for my services.

No doubt there is stinkers out there from lots of manufacturers. Youtest it thoroughly when you get it and if its problematic you send it back in the first week or 2.
Click to expand...

Of course, depends on context. I'm approaching this from a sports perspective and seeing the results generated, it looked pretty much spot on with slower / non-moving subjects but all over the place with faster moving subjects.
 
F/1.4 said:
Tommy, having previously owned the Nikon 80-200, Sigma 70-200 OS and the Nikon 70-200 VR2 I can give you some feedback

I purchased the Canon 70-200 IS II after debating for ages over it and the Tamron, just before it shipped I cancelled the order and bought the Tamron 70-200 VC and the put the difference towards the Canon 85 L.

My experience is that it is easily as good if not better than the VR2 I owned which came from you and you know that was a good copy.

I shot a wedding recently and it never missed a single frame. Its insanely sharp at 2.8. It does vignette abit which is super easy to correct but unusually I prefer the vignette intact and dont correct it in LR.

Bokeh is beautiful and colour/contrast is superb.

The VC is incredible and I can easily hand hold 200mm 1/4 second.

Build is lovely aswell, the smallest 70-200 and possibly the lightest(though its still heavy)

I dont regret not getting the canon at all. Could have got it from onestop digital etc a little cheaper but couldnt be arsed with potential import duty so opted for DigitalRev, ordered on a friday and has it on a monday.

To reiterate I think at least my copy is better than the Nikon VR2
Click to expand...

Sounds good enough to take a chance on just waiting for a discocunt code thing from digital rev and it's probably getting bought.:)
 
Last edited:
F/1.4 said:
Tommy, having previously owned the Nikon 80-200, Sigma 70-200 OS and the Nikon 70-200 VR2 I can give you some feedback

I purchased the Canon 70-200 IS II after debating for ages over it and the Tamron, just before it shipped I cancelled the order and bought the Tamron 70-200 VC and the put the difference towards the Canon 85 L.

My experience is that it is easily as good if not better than the VR2 I owned which came from you and you know that was a good copy.

I shot a wedding recently and it never missed a single frame. Its insanely sharp at 2.8. It does vignette abit which is super easy to correct but unusually I prefer the vignette intact and dont correct it in LR.

Bokeh is beautiful and colour/contrast is superb.

The VC is incredible and I can easily hand hold 200mm 1/4 second.

Build is lovely aswell, the smallest 70-200 and possibly the lightest(though its still heavy)

I dont regret not getting the canon at all. Could have got it from onestop digital etc a little cheaper but couldnt be arsed with potential import duty so opted for DigitalRev, ordered on a friday and has it on a monday.

To reiterate I think at least my copy is better than the Nikon VR2
Click to expand...
I second that. I'm very happy with mine.
 
I took the photo actually accidentally with the iso set low and it choose a crazy slow shutter at 200mm of quarter of a second and it was sharp. Repeated the same shot about five or six times perfectly sharp each time.

I used the automated dot tune built into magic lantern and it tuned it to -6 on both the wide and tele end and it looks pretty similar. Nice that you can micro adjust the lens at both end of the zoom range. Phil do you use yours much for video?
 
I went ahead an ordered the Tamron if it's crap it can always go back. Hopefully it will be okay I could really be doing with it for a shoot next weekend.
 
Last edited:
i've heard great things about the tamron, I thought it was only just released at the end of 2012
I'm a fan of my sigma 70-200 OS, but I won't try the canon mkii version in case I cry and sell my car to get one instead!
I think at f8 it's razor sharp and wide open? i'm more bothered about the shot that just sharpness
 
DizMatt said:
i've heard great things about the tamron,

I think at f8 it's razor sharp and wide open?
Click to expand...
10004007_777298808960822_2043171659_n.jpg


Wide open, 200mm. I never stop down for more sharpness, it's pin sharp wide open as it is...
 
Nice selective quoting :-)
Was talking about the sigma at this point!
nice shot though. Would like to try one and compare to my sigma
 
DizMatt said:
Nice selective quoting :)
Was talking about the sigma at this point!
nice shot though. Would like to try one and compare to my sigma
Click to expand...

I have had the Siggy O.S and the Nikon VR2 so will update the thread once mine arrives on a comparison.
 
It's sharper than my Nikon Vr2 was. No doubt in my mind. Could also be down to different cameras as the mk3 is higher res than the D3 / D700 etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
helloimkev said:
Avoid like the plague - had a fellow sports photographer friend who used one for around a year, out of focus parts of the image had all sorts of strange ghosting & on some shots almost looked like he was panning at a low shutter speed despite shutter speeds of 1/2000+, there were also issues with the sharpness & DOF on some of the "focussed" parts of the image as well.

In all this he sent it back to Tamron twice to be returned in exactly the same condition & was told time and again that the lens was working as intended. He finally gave in & got a Nikon 70-200mm V2 & the quality of his images improved tenfold overnight.
Click to expand...

I heard similar about ONE copy of Canon mkII. All manufacturers sell some complete duffers, and there is too much fragile plastic (its a very heavy lens!) used in the making. I can't comment about the rates of failures. Perhaps Stuart could come and shed some light?
 
daugirdas said:
I heard similar about ONE copy of Canon mkII. All manufacturers sell some complete duffers, and there is too much fragile plastic (its a very heavy lens!) used in the making. I can't comment about the rates of failures. Perhaps Stuart could come and shed some light?
Click to expand...

It very likely was a single defect. The fact that put me off was somebody in the shop who originally sold it to him tested it & said it worked just fine like the model he had.
 
helloimkev said:
It very likely was a single defect. The fact that put me off was somebody in the shop who originally sold it to him tested it & said it worked just fine like the model he had.
Click to expand...

... because the centre was relatively OK at f/5.6 and reviewed on LCD? This seems to be the way to test all kinds of glass. The edges are hardly ever tested even in repair centres
 
Hmm - thinking about a 70-200 Canon L for me - I love the optics (and the looks) of the L's but Tamron seems to be getting some excellent write ups nowadays for half the price - having been in the trade (20 years ago!) I know that some duffers escape from the stocks - but at least with a new Canon or Tamron (or Nikon come to that) you can go back to the store to complain - guess the story here is buy the lens and test it very carefully for a week or so to make sure you're happy with it - certainly nowadays, you don't have to waste or wait for film doing it :-)
 
Well the Tamorn 70-200 vc arrived first thing this morning.

From initial impressions I am pretty pleased, I have ran it through a few tests this morning and it appears to be exactly what I was hoping for. It's bitingly sharp, I would say very close to the Nikon VR2. At most focal lengths it does seem sharper that the Nikon VR2 as Anthony mentioned earlier in the thread, but that could be to do with using it on the D800 rather than the D700 I had when I owned the VR2. I don't think it is just as good at 200mm as the VR2 was but it's pretty close. AF speed is much quicker than I thought it would be and the V.C which I have tested thoroughly due to known copy issues seems to be working perfectly, seems better to me than Nikon's VR. I had to micro adjust too +3 to get it absolutely bang on but I am more than happy with that. In terms of build it is okay, not as good as the VR2 which I expected to be fair, so I have no issues with that. I took out to the park with one of my dogs earlier just to see how it would get on and it performed pretty well, not VR2 good in terms of keeper rate but much better than the Sigma I had before. Overall I think I made the right decision the only thing I don't like about it is the tripod foot but that's no biggy.

In comparison to the Sigma 70-200 O.S I had, this is a much better lens in every way, sharper wide open, faster af speed, better stabilisation and and as good if not better build quality.

I have a outdoor shoot tomorrow all being well with the weather and I am really looking forward to seeing how it performs in a real life environment.

So from initial impressions:

Slightly weaker at 200mm than the Nikon equivalent.
Not as good build quality as the Nikon equivalent.
Beats the Sigma 70-200 O.S on everything.
If I was shooting sports, racing, birds in flight etc. I think the Nikon would still be the best option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top