70-200 F2.8 Conundrum

robp

robp

Messages
423
Name
rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I will shortly be purchasing a 70-200 F2.8 lens for my Nikon 750.

But I have a conundrum: The new Tamron G2 is approx. £1350 (considerably cheaper at Panamoz), while a used Nikon VR2 in excellent condition is approx. £1170 at MPB.

My feeling is that I should go for the used Nikon for what I assume will be the better comparable image quality. However, I would be grateful to get folks' views on this.

Many thanks

Rob
 
robp said:
My feeling is that I should go for the used Nikon
Click to expand...


I would not resist to that… since there is
a guaranty from that store! Go for it! (y)
 
Nikon's 70-200 VRII is a superb lens, I loved mine before it had to go to make way for a long prime ... supposedly the Nikon 70-200 f4 is also very good and much cheaper if you don't need f2.8.
 
Have you considered the Tamron G1?

Had one a few years ago and was fantastic iq. Compare it to the Nikon on dxo and then make your mind up;)
 
Hi I had the VR2 some years ago used on a D800 it was superb I also used it with the 1.7 converter with very little loss of IQ.
 
Can't go wrong with the Nikon VRII. Great lens. I had the original 70-200VR as well and that was also excellent, with the advantage of a closer minimum focussing distance to the VRII - if you're looking to save a little money that would be the one I'd go for instead of Tamron. Nothing against Tamron but the Nikons are built exceptionally well
 
The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8VRII is my "go to" lens for action shooting. Blistering fast AF acquisition and tracking plus built like a tank. Works well with the Nikkor TC1.4 III too. You won't be disappointed.

+1 for Grays of Westminster.

GC
 
I should not have come in here :facepalm: I’ve been resisting the 70-200 urge for some time now...
 
Go for the Nikon, thye way they're built you won't need a guarantee if it's in good condition, the only time I take mine off is when it's too long :)
Plus the Tamron will depreciate, the Nikon will sell for the same price you bought it - forever!!!
 
A bit off the original question but I bought the nikon 70-200 VR original version from the classifieds here. Cost under £600 and is tack sharp, focuses quickly and is an overall amazing lens. Might be another option worth considering.....
 
draiman said:
A bit off the original question but I bought the nikon 70-200 VR original version from the classifieds here. Cost under £600 and is tack sharp, focuses quickly and is an overall amazing lens. Might be another option worth considering.....
Click to expand...

Top lens. A bargain now.
 
robp said:
Hi, I will shortly be purchasing a 70-200 F2.8 lens for my Nikon 750.

But I have a conundrum: The new Tamron G2 is approx. £1350 (considerably cheaper at Panamoz), while a used Nikon VR2 in excellent condition is approx. £1170 at MPB.

My feeling is that I should go for the used Nikon for what I assume will be the better comparable image quality. However, I would be grateful to get folks' views on this.

Many thanks

Rob
Click to expand...

The Nikon every time, you won't regret it!
 
gramps said:
Nikon's 70-200 VRII is a superb lens, I loved mine before it had to go to make way for a long prime ... supposedly the Nikon 70-200 f4 is also very good and much cheaper if you don't need f2.8.
Click to expand...
And depending on the use the f/4 might be the better choice... is doesn't have focus breathing like the VRII does, it's also lighter.
 
Struggled to get a sharp image when panning with the original Nikon 70-200 VR on a D4 unless I used a high shutter speed - replaced it with the VR2 version and very happy; I suspect there may have been a fault with the original VR lens.
 
also another VR2 lover - its biggest flaw is that its so good so holds its price really well..
 
Bought a 70-200 G2 a few months ago. Looked round for a used VR2, but for the same price I took the chance on the G2 from Panamoz.

I was also a bit worried buying used - especially with a lens that may have had serious use by a pro.

I don't use the 70-200 focal length much - but the G2 is a quality lens and the Tamron VR is as good - if not better - than I have seen on any lens

The concern with the Tamron is how it will stand the test of use over time. The 3 year warranty will ease my concern a bit.

Tamron also has a dock and TCs now.

Dave.
 
gremlin16 said:
Get a vr 1, i much prefer it to the 2! About £400 less
Click to expand...
On FF? Too much vignette going for me, plus I prefer the rendering of the VRII anyway.

OP the Nikon VRII is superb and my favourite lens. However, the Tamron G2 is supposed to be pretty special and sharper than the Nikon. Of course there's more to a lens than sharpness.
 
Thank you so much everybody for your advice!

I now have more lenses to consider - VR1? Tamron G1? Nikon F4? - which makes decision making more difficult in a very good way. And then there are other considerations I now have to take into account - Grays of Westminster, possible use of a teleconverter (yes) etc.

I'm at that awkward point in my photography where I'm looking at turning my keen amateur status in to weekend warrior.

I have been shooting kids footy for my local newspaper for approx. three years. I use the Nikon 70-300VR and produce decent results although the occasional slow focus issue has lost me a few shots here and there. However, I'm at that point where I want a shallower depth of field to blur the background more (as in the pics the pros have in the same paper of our local Championship team). I often find myself shooting at up to ISO8000. The pics are acceptable in spite of this but I'm at that point where acceptable is not enough to me so the wider aperture would be a joy to use. On the flip side, from a business point of view there is clearly no justification in upgrading the 70-300 as the paper is satisfied with my pics. But then as an amateur it's always been one of my aspirational lenses.

In addition to this, I'm doing my first wedding next year and feel that this lens would be useful for shooting speeches from the back of the room, as well as portrait shots etc. Again this purchase would not make business sense when I can hire for the big day. But there again as an amateur I'd like one!

Hmmm, decisions, decisions...
 
robp said:
Thank you so much everybody for your advice!

I now have more lenses to consider - VR1? Tamron G1? Nikon F4? - which makes decision making more difficult in a very good way. And then there are other considerations I now have to take into account - Grays of Westminster, possible use of a teleconverter (yes) etc.

I'm at that awkward point in my photography where I'm looking at turning my keen amateur status in to weekend warrior.

I have been shooting kids footy for my local newspaper for approx. three years. I use the Nikon 70-300VR and produce decent results although the occasional slow focus issue has lost me a few shots here and there. However, I'm at that point where I want a shallower depth of field to blur the background more (as in the pics the pros have in the same paper of our local Championship team). I often find myself shooting at up to ISO8000. The pics are acceptable in spite of this but I'm at that point where acceptable is not enough to me so the wider aperture would be a joy to use. On the flip side, from a business point of view there is clearly no justification in upgrading the 70-300 as the paper is satisfied with my pics. But then as an amateur it's always been one of my aspirational lenses.

In addition to this, I'm doing my first wedding next year and feel that this lens would be useful for shooting speeches from the back of the room, as well as portrait shots etc. Again this purchase would not make business sense when I can hire for the big day. But there again as an amateur I'd like one!

Hmmm, decisions, decisions...
Click to expand...
Get one, life's too short. Plus, if you buy used you'd probably lose less money reselling it than you would hiring one a couple of times.
 
Get the VR1. The vignette thing will probably be a non issue. I've shot loads of equestrian and the odd wedding. Usually crop anyway to 8x10
Fantastic value.
 
Not sure a 70-200mm will be 'long' enough for your needs - a better purchase may well be a new 300mm f4 that is much lighter to carry and will give better reach.
 
I have the new Nikkor 70mm to 200mm f/2.8 FL ED VR. It is a stunning piece. Highly recommended, but not cheap. It replaces my original 80mm - 200mm f/2.8 Nikkor that I bought over 17 years ago.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Not sure a 70-200mm will be 'long' enough for your needs - a better purchase may well be a new 300mm f4 that is much lighter to carry and will give better reach.
Click to expand...
300mm wouldn't be a great choice for weddings tbh.
 
To confuse further... there is a new Sigma (rumoured) to add to the equation.
 
robp said:
Yes, I am aware of the rumours and yes, it will add to my confusion lol
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it will be quite pricey when on first release, although nothing like the latest Nikon ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top