Wanted - a fast zoom for a D7100 - Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR II - or something else?

Cheese Scientist

Cheese Scientist

Messages
584
Name
Amanda
Edit My Images
Yes

Hi

I want to do some gig photography so need a long lens with good performance in low light and I'm v keen on sharpness. VR v important function as will always be handheld. Don't want to swap lenses hence a zoom needed rather than primes.
I will likely update to FX in the future so am keen on longevity, or at least, holding its value well. Don't mind paying for quality but have an upper limit around £1.5k
I'm thinking of getting the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G VR II. it seems to get good reviews, however it is expensive.

Is this the lens for me? (sorry if I'm being thick)

Amanda Panda
 
I have the VRI which is awesome on my D7000 - but I never use the VR bit, which I feel is largely a gimmick and I've never found it to give me a sharper image than not using it

At the time I bought mine the older 80-200 f2.8 was half the price and just as good optically - I wasted £600

The VRII is supposed to be better IQ than the VRI, but I suspect you'd only really notice in bench tests, so...

If you have the money and don't mind spending it, buy the VRII; but if you'd rather save a few hundreds of £s then I'd suggest finding a good used VRI instead - try MPB (TP's advertisers), I've bought and sold several times through them and always been happy :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I have the VRI which is awesome on my D7000 - but I never use the VR bit, which I feel is largely a gimmick and I've never found it to give me a sharper image than not using it

At the time I bought mine the older 80-200 f2.8 was half the price and just as good optically - I wasted £600

The VRII is supposed to be better IQ than the VRI, but I suspect you'd only really notice in bench tests, so...

If you have the money and don't mind spending it, buy the VRII; but if you'd rather save a few hundreds of £s then I'd suggest finding a good used VRI instead - try MPB (TP's advertisers), I've bought and sold several times through them and always been happy :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Phil Young said:
Here's your answer; ;)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/tamron-70-200mm-vc-usd.511412/
Click to expand...

Ah, both interesting... I've just seen a second hand Nikkor VRI on sale in Camulet for £699 which could be one option, but it sounds like the Tamron is very good and would be cheaper even for a new one.
 
That's the old tamron though which had their old 'bought at a car boot sale' AF system which was crap. Their overhauled AF now works much faster.

Having owned the VRII version and used a VRI a few times, the VRII is much better than the VRI although some people bemoan the focus breathing issues it has. VRII much better and on full frame doesn't have the same vignette issue.

New Tamron is supposed to be quite good but can't verify that. Old one had good optics so assuming the same and new AF then no reason to doubt it. Plenty of fans like Phil and he's fussy:p:D
 
If I was after a 70-200 for a Nikon, I would go for the Nikkor VR II. I have a feeling that the Tamron comes with a long warranty should you choose that route. Depends quite a bit on how much you want to spend! (I know you've posted a budget but we all like to save a few quid when we can!!!)
 
Cheese Scientist said:
For once, I don't want the 'best quality for the money', I actually just want the best quality I think?
Click to expand...
I can't say for the VR2 but optics don't come much sharper than the tamron VC, I certainly haven't seen anything that I can separate it between.

Anyway, DxO scores the tamron above the VR2 in sharpness but people say the Nikon is better...I haven't been able to compare but I'd be suprised if I could tell much of a difference.

If you've convinced yourself of the VR2 then just get that...
 
Last edited:
I've tested them all side by side. If the Nikon VR-II is in budget, and 70-200/2.8 is the spec you want (sounds right to me), get that. The Nikon and Canon MkII lead the field, both fantastic lenses, very sharp, and with proven build quality. And they will hold their better than anything else.

The Tamron VC is also an excellent lens, pretty much a match for the Caninkons optically, and the VC is excellent too. The Tamron makes more sense for Canon users, as it's so much cheaper, but the Nikon VR-II is not quite so much more money. The Sigma OS is also a very decent lens and much cheaper, but not quite in the same league.
 
My normal combination is a D7100 with the nikon 70/200 VR1, never had a problem, and I do low light sport stuff
I love the build quaility of nikon lenses, mine has taken a few knocks since I bought it new a few years back and
still performs superbly
 
Part of the OP's problem is that he (and the rest to an extent) are splitting hairs over bench-test IQ which is often hard to see in the real world. Mostly as people use too slow a shutter speed and any inherent awesome IQ gets lost to the merest hint of camera shake

The old 'rule' of using a shutter speed as the inverse of the focal length has now been dismissed due to cameras having such high resolution, that old rule just isn't fast enough

For me, shooting people who move (like people in a band usually do!!!) means you need a shutter speed fast enough to stop that movement, and that means 1/200 or faster. Due to the camera's ability to record fine detail then 1/500 is a better bet. So even at just 1/200 VR is going to make sod all difference as the problem is subject movement not camera movement, by 1/500 you wouldn't be able to tell at all I suspect

Adding in factors of build quality and resale value, the Nikon variant wins - so if you can afford to get a VRII, (You said... I don't want the 'best quality for the money', I actually just want the best quality) stop peeing about and just buy it - end of :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Part of the OP's problem is that he (and the rest to an extent) are splitting hairs over bench-test IQ which is often hard to see in the real world. Mostly as people use too slow a shutter speed and any inherent awesome IQ gets lost to the merest hint of camera shake

The old 'rule' of using a shutter speed as the inverse of the focal length has now been dismissed due to cameras having such high resolution, that old rule just isn't fast enough

For me, shooting people who move (like people in a band usually do!!!) means you need a shutter speed fast enough to stop that movement, and that means 1/200 or faster. Due to the camera's ability to record fine detail then 1/500 is a better bet. So even at just 1/200 VR is going to make sod all difference as the problem is subject movement not camera movement, by 1/500 you wouldn't be able to tell at all I suspect

Adding in factors of build quality and resale value, the Nikon variant wins - so if you can afford to get a VRII, (You said... I don't want the 'best quality for the money', I actually just want the best quality) stop peeing about and just buy it - end of :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Hi - thanks for that. Seeing as I can get the Nikon VRII for just £200 more than the Tamron, I am going to go for it.
BUT - not a 'he'. :-)
 
You will not be disappointed the Nikon vr 2 is a fantastic lens, i do not own it but my pro friend has it and i use it whenever i can, its fab, it will be heavy on your body though, if you dont need f2.8 the Nikon f4 is gorgeous too.
Go with Nikon, both these lenses are super sharp. I have used both of them, my savings are going on one of these lenses.:)
 
VR2 is a stunning lens Amanda, you have made a good choice.
 
Phil Young said:
I think there lies the mistake by Tamrom - it's price is a bit too close to the Nikon. I was lucky and got mine for £650 from Panamoz but now I think you'd be lucky to get a grey for under £800.

Let us know how you get on with your VR2, I have no doubt you'll love it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Tamron is £1100 from Amazon, but my regular guys don't have it. Anyway, after trying out a rather bashed about VR1 this morning, I've now forked out the £ for the VR II. Now I've got the horrible 1 week wait.
http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f28g-ed-vr-ii-lens-498-p.asp

Thanks for all the help guys.
 
£1100 for a Tamron 70-200!!:eek::eek: I hadn't actually registered the price before- that's pricey and the Nikon VII is a much better option.

Glad you opted against VI- the VII is the way forward and you'll wonder why you even had the debate:p- enjoy:)
 
You wont be disapointed with your VR II I have the VRI and the quality is 2nd to none.:)
 
Phil Young said:
I can't say for the VR2 but optics don't come much sharper than the tamron VC, I certainly haven't seen anything that I can separate it between.

Anyway, DxO scores the tamron above the VR2 in sharpness but people say the Nikon is better...I haven't been able to compare but I'd be suprised if I could tell much of a difference.

If you've convinced yourself of the VR2 then just get that...
Click to expand...

Phil I owned the vr2 and can confirm I think the only areas the vr2 bests the tamron would be af servo and build. The tamron is better IQ, although vignettes more
 
I've got the 70-200mm vr1 on a D7000 and it's excellent. I've never used the vr2, and I'm sure it is better but whether that difference is noticeable in the real world on what you shoot is debatable.
I doubt you would be disappointed with the VR1, the focus is lightning fast and I've never had any issues with IQ. As was said earlier, at this end of the market the difference is just splitting hairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top