Nikon Telephoto In The 70-200mm Range?

[hogfaninga]

My impression of the DPR lens review of the Sigma was that the Sigma wasn't nearly as sharp as the Tamron or Nikon lenses. I admit I haven't chased down the MTFs though. In fact, if Tamron has fixed AF speed, or if the Tamron AF for Nikon is better than it is for Canon, it seems like the better lens overall if you're looking for a reason to not buy the Nikon.

On sharpness you are right about their tests, but the Tamron's AF was much slower. It was a wash and it depends on what the person's needs are. If you are shooting sports then AF is more important at least to me it is. The pic quality from the shots I took with the Sigma were great. I wanted it to perform noticably worse than my Nikon because I paid a lot more for my Nikon, but it wasn't a huge gap overall in my tests. Not at all.

All I know from my own real life tests is the Sigma is a heck of a deal and is a very nice lens overall. Its AF is very fast and pic quality is good.

As I said I own the Nikon 70-200 VR and while it is nicer than the Sigma it isn't $1000-1200 nicer. Nobody who is objective would say it is worth that much more. If they do they own the Nikon 70-200 and just want to claim that to feel it is to justify paying that much, they have never used the Sigma (honestly never used it), or they are a Nikon fanboy. I only own Nikon lenses (that is about to change on my next purchase), but I'm objective and fair(some tests I have done on various friends 3rd party lenses opened my eyes). There are a number of 3rd party lenses just as good or better than the Nikon equivalent. In this case the Nikon is better, it just isn't that much better for the price.

 

[Cliff3]

I was talking about the 67 Mustang.

Sorry about that - I figured it out after I posted it. I really shouldn't be posting online at 4am...

 

[103734]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

 

[cube]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

I think I would just go for a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and then get a Sigma 150-500 OS HSM.

 

[jaseone]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

It depends entirely upon the focal length you need and the conditions you will be shooting in, to me if someone is asking that kind of question then they don't really know what they need/want so I would suggest stepping back and really thinking about what you want out of your next lens before proceeding.

 

[103734]

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

 

[Cliff3]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

The 80-400 is getting long in the tooth and is ripe for replacement. It was Nikon's first VR lens, and it lacks AF-S. The lens is described by reviewers as slow to focus and clumsy to handle. Opinions of optical quality seem to vary among reviewers, which indicates sample variation and that variation exists is a concern.

If it were my money (and 4 years ago, it was) I would opt for the lens I suggested. It is a professional quality constant aperture zoom with first rate optics and as fast a focus speed as you'll find. You can extend the range with teleconverters. Nikon's TC14E (1.4x) and TC17E (1.7x) will work just fine with this lens, transforming it into a 112-280 f4 or 136-340 f4.8 lens, respectively. Nikon's TC20E (2.0x) doesn't work especially well with any lens, but it is an option too. The only real risk is buying used instead of new. Ask the seller lots of questions, one of which should be whether the lens is a US lens or gray market, since Nikon doesn't service gray market lenses.

 

[termina3]

VR is only worthwhile if your subject isn't moving... and I don't get an additional 2-3 stops as they advertise. Maybe closer to 1-2. I guess I'm just a relatively steady shooter though, so there's not as much to correct (and gain).

 

[jaseone]

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

Well the reason you're paying the extra for the 80-200 is that it is a constant aperture zoom allowing you to have it wide open at 200 so to compare that to getting an extra 200mm out of the 80-400 doesn't make much sense to me. Kinda like square peg/round hole only one fits what you need.

The only real qualifier you have given is that it needs to be "fast" and the 80-200 qualifies in that department.

 

[chocolaterabbit]

i see that the used prices for the 70-200 is pretty crazy right now in US ebay, so i guess that rules it out. I didn't buy it from the US. As for a new revised 70-200 or 80-400, i wouldn't count on it, it could be a long time away. Use/buy what you have now, and don't wait for tomorrow's technology.

As for the sigma 70-200, you are correct that the nikon isn't twice as good, but as with all luxury items, there are diminishing gains when you approach the top end. the 70-200 is no different. you are paying a lot more for not much more, and only you can decide if the slightly faster AF, slightly better glass, build quality, and VR is worth the money for you. it's a personal choice, and one the OP could take. Don't get the 80-400 though, unless you think you need the extra zoom, and are willing to give up some performance.

 

[103734]

Well I ordered the 80-200mm on amazon right after my last post, so hopefully I'll get it this week

 

[Cliff3]

Enjoy your lens. Since that is not the version I was talking about, forget everything I said about teleconverters. They won't work with the lens you purchased. If you want to use teleconverters, Kenko is probably your best bet.

 

[103734]

Humm amazon called me to confirm that I was the one that ordered the lens, is that something that amazon normally does?

 

[rogersmj]

Interesting...in all the years I've been ordering from them, no they've never called me. But maybe they do it for certain high-dollar items...? Or perhaps your credit card company triggered a request for additional verification.

You ordered this one I assume?

 

[Artful Dodger]

Humm amazon called me to confirm that I was the one that ordered the lens, is that something that amazon normally does?

Amazon has never done this with me and I've bought some high ticket items I would call Amazon CS and let them know what was said and hopefully you didn't give any CC info. Amazon would have that already so I've never heard of this, let us know the outcome and god luck.

 

[rogersmj]

Man you ordered at the right time, Steve...the price is up $100 over what it was just a few weeks ago. I'm looking to buy one of these in the next 6 weeks or so hopefully, but prices are going up across the board...it's tough to find a used one for less than $800. Argh.

 

[Hmac]

Nikon is more than likely going to update the 70-200 soon like another poster said. I have been hearing this year, but who knows. I bought one when prices were way down a couple of months ago, but it is a waste right now to buy it (prices are way, way up and new one is probably coming soon) in my opinion unless you have to do it for professional reasons. That said, it is a nice lens, but it doesn't have as great reviews on a FX body. VR is nice, but honestly you don't need it if you shoot sports or anything with fast action. Stationary things yes it will help, but even without it you can take super pictures. VR is nice, but not $700-1000 more nice nor is it a necessity at all.

I agree - the 70-200 VR was a fantastic lens on my D2H, is slightly less so on my D3. In reality, the corner vignetting is rarely a problem, but I do know that it's there, and am inclined to make the 70-200VR II my next lens purchase. Not because I need it, really, but because I want it.

As to VR, for most of the shooting I do, I have it turned off. I rarely use it.

 

[ChrisA]

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $711 on amazon
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $640 on amazon
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D that is $925 on amazon

What would you guys suggest?

Pay $650 for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D.

 

[ChrisA]

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

No. VR can't make up for the lens being slower. VR only helps with camera shake, not subject motion or depth of field.

It is very hard to make good use of a 400mm lens. For one thing you need to have very still and clean air.

 

[103734]

Man you ordered at the right time, Steve...the price is up $100 over what it was just a few weeks ago. I'm looking to buy one of these in the next 6 weeks or so hopefully, but prices are going up across the board...it's tough to find a used one for less than $800. Argh.

wow I guess I did order one at a good time, strange I never seen the price of a lens go up on amazon.

 

[compuwar]

Pay $650 for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D.

Sees counter-intuitive to pay more than you have to...

(Got a used but pristine 80-200 for $500 a week ago.)

 

[rogersmj]

Sees counter-intuitive to pay more than you have to...

(Got a used but pristine 80-200 for $500 a week ago.)

Is that for the modern double-ring version we're talking about, or the older push-pull one? I sometimes see push-pull 80-200s go for around $500, but never the double-ring unless something's wrong with it. The used EX and EX+ condition 80-200mm double-rings are around $800 on keh.com.

If it's the double-ring you got for $500, please tell me how you found that!

 

[compuwar]

Is that for the modern double-ring version we're talking about, or the older push-pull one?

It's push-pull- great lens at a fair price with caps and the nice leather Nikon case. I might have been able to get a two-ring for less than $650 if they'd had one in. I tend to get very good prices out of the Virginia-based dealer I got it from, so I don't feel the need to haggle- only one price I'm not allowed to say but it wasn't for a lens.

 

[dlegend]

anyone have the sigma 70-200? I'm looking at getting a f2.8 in the 70/80-200 range but can't decide. The price difference is so big and i haven't been able to try one out. I'm looking at it to take pictures of night sports games and indoor volleyball.

 

[dlegend]

does anyone have first hand experience with a nikon 70-200 and an off-brand? I just looked at the Nikon today and it was awesome, but that $1,800 price tag isn't going to fit my budget.