I Think ???? I'm picking the right Lens

Digisatman

Digisatman

Messages
1,080
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
I like sports local Rugby / Cricket / Football club 5 min walk from my house as well as a Lake & Woodlands ( Lucky sod :)), I like wildlife & Planes ( But still have a 70-300 AF G) and travel Wiltshire playing Squash ( would like to get some nice action shots with out flash ) & the odd portrait (Nikon 30-70 & 18-55 in the camera bag I also have an old Kenko 2 x 300 pro DG gathering dust.)

Now the lens I'm thinking of acquiring is a Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 mm f / 2.8 ED IF AF-S D M / A Lens (Not VR as to £££££££)

Am I making the right decision.

Answers on a post card or in this instance by the reply button below :)
 
I had this lens for sports and it is a cracker. Lack of VR does not really matter for action as you will be shooting at pretty quick shutter speeds. I upgraded to the 70-200 VRII so I could also use it hand held at slow shutter speeds for inside churches at weddings so it has become a dual purpose lens. 200mm not sufficient for cricket (or probably some plane & wildlife shots) but if you are happy with 200mm then this lens is very good.
 
Ahhhh just seen a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM for the same price Brand new

which one to go for Nikon non VR (used) or Sigma with OS (new)
 
Skip both Tamron 70-200vc is an excellent lens and cheap as chips grey market
 
I had the Sigma but returned it, I wasn't happy with it. Then bought a used 80-200 AF-S which was superb. After almost a year, it developed a fault and the dealer couldn't get it repaired ( Nikon had it twice!) it so was replaced it with the AF-D model. I didn't really like it and bought a 70-200VR.
Good as it was, it still wasn't as sharp as my earlier AF-S, and even though the 80-200's didn't have VR, they were well weighted and I could easily hold it steady at 200mm.
The 80-200 is built like a tank, if I was in the market for another big lens, that would be the one I would go for. If an AF-S turns up, buy it and keep it forever....
Allan
 
the tamron is *very* close performance wise
sigma 100-300 f4 is another option
 
I have owned the nikon 80-200, the sigma 70-200 o.s, the nikon 70-200 vr2 and currently own the tamron 70-200vc and an 80-200 af-s.

The vr2 was stellar but is expensive. The vc on the tamron is much better than the vr on the nikon. The vr2 was marginally sharper than the tamron vc between 180-200mm wide open. The af speed I think is quicker on the tamron I actually rate it overall as the best all round of the 70-200 I have owned.
 
f/2.8 said:
I have owned the nikon 80-200, the sigma 70-200 o.s, the nikon 70-200 vr2 and currently own the tamron 70-200vc and an 80-200 af-s.

The vr2 was stellar but is expensive. The vc on the tamron is much better than the vr on the nikon. The vr2 was marginally sharper than the tamron vc between 180-200mm wide open. The af speed I think is quicker on the tamron I actually rate it overall as the best all round of the 70-200 I have owned.
Click to expand...

After checking DXOmark web site and compared the three, which confirms what you have said I have just ordered a Brand new Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 Di VC USD ( Got it on the cheap @ £689 :D )
 
It's very good especially at the money am sure you will be pleased with it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top