Mid priced tele zoom lens for FX Nikon - options?

harryduns

harryduns

Messages
273
Name
Harry
Edit My Images
No
I'm in the market for a tele zoom for my D700. I currently have a lot of decent primes, but the only zooms I own are all DX lenses that I used with my old D200.

I love my primes as I'm primarily a studio portrait guy, however I'm getting into shooting events a bit and obviously the versatility of a zoom trumps a prime in some situations - I've found myself desperately trying to switch lenses and cursing myself for not having some useful zooms in my stable!

My main requirements are fairly good low light performance (I often seem to end up in dingey places, e.g. gigs) and decent auto focus. The Tamron 2.8 70-200mm sounded good until I read about the poor AF. I have read negative things about the original 70-200mm VR Nikon on FX bodies, and there's no way I can afford the VRII as things stand. Maybe if I start getting some proper paid work I could spring for one, but right now I'm aiming for the best mid-range lens.

Has anyone tried the various Sigmas, Tamrons, Tokinas etc and can suggest what might be a good choice for me? Cheers!
 
Well firstly, the Nikon 70-200 F2.8's models I & II are the very best bet. I have the mark II model on my D3 and it's nothing short of astonishing. However, my friend has a version I on his D700, and that works pretty good as well. Whilst there are obviously vignetting issues with the full frame sensors, and corner sharpness isn't quite as good as the centre, it's really not that bad. I have to really pixel peep to see the difference between his and mine.
 
I can't see I've noticed any problems with the MKI 70-200 VR on the D700 with the exception of a bit of vignetting at wider apertures, certainly nothing that's going to make me flog it and spend another £4-500 on the MKII :shrug:

If you don't fancy the 70-200 VR, a cheaper decent alternative would be an 80-200 AF-D...
 
First time anyone has confused those two lenses!
 
I'm sure current VRI users won't be able to justify selling them and buying the VRII, but as someone who owns neither, I'm wondering about whether buying a used VRI would be a false economy, especially given how expensive they are even then. I know that the VRI and II are obviously great lenses and ultimately the best for top pros... but even the VRI are still selling for a lot of money used and I can't justify spending over 1000 quid right now!
 
harryduns said:
I'm sure current VRI users won't be able to justify selling them and buying the VRII, but as someone who owns neither, I'm wondering about whether buying a used VRI would be a false economy, especially given how expensive they are even then. I know that the VRI and II are obviously great lenses and ultimately the best for top pros... but even the VRI are still selling for a lot of money used and I can't justify spending over 1000 quid right now!
Click to expand...

Then £550-worth of 80-200 AF-D is a' calling you :naughty:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Then £550-worth of 80-200 AF-D is a' calling you :naughty:
Click to expand...

The 80-200 does seem like a good deal - have you actually been able to compare one against a 70-200 VRI/II, and if so what are the big differences aside from the lack of VR and the slight difference in focal range?
 
harryduns said:
I'm sure current VRI users won't be able to justify selling them and buying the VRII, but as someone who owns neither, I'm wondering about whether buying a used VRI would be a false economy, especially given how expensive they are even then. I know that the VRI and II are obviously great lenses and ultimately the best for top pros... but even the VRI are still selling for a lot of money used and I can't justify spending over 1000 quid right now!
Click to expand...

If you buy 2nd hand and find its not right for you, you should be able to sell for pretty much what you bought it for. I find it a great lens, although I don't use mine that much. I do think about selling, as I would love to have that £900 or so in the bank, less maybe an 85mm 1.8 which I would use more, but I can't do it!!

As FITP says, the 80-200 is a good bet too.
 
Harry, I've used the mark I 70-200 and own the 80-200. Optically there is very little in it, tbh. If VR doesn't matter to you the 80-200 is a hell of a lot of lens for the money... and I'm VERY fussy.
 
cambsno said:
If you buy 2nd hand and find its not right for you, you should be able to sell for pretty much what you bought it for.
Click to expand...

That's true, but I still can't justify having a grand or more tied up in a lens right now!

From what I've read, it seems the AF-D vs AF-S thing doesn't matter so much on cameras with good built in AF like the D700. Think I may go for the 80-200 AD-F, which seem to go for about 500-600 on Ebay :) Thanks for your help all!
 
harryduns said:
The 80-200 does seem like a good deal - have you actually been able to compare one against a 70-200 VRI/II, and if so what are the big differences aside from the lack of VR and the slight difference in focal range?
Click to expand...

I went from an 80-200 (the later two-touch version) to a 70-200 VR mainly for the AF-S for motorsport, but in all honesty apart from that I can't see much difference for what was, at the time, a £600 upgrade....
 
harryduns said:
The 80-200 does seem like a good deal - have you actually been able to compare one against a 70-200 VRI/II, and if so what are the big differences aside from the lack of VR and the slight difference in focal range?
Click to expand...

Don't think that would be a fair comparison, although the AFS 80-200 is closer to the VR I price. I have the VR I on a D700 - it vignettes wide open, but that might not be an issue, depending on your subject, and or background (lighter backgrounds make it more obvious).

Unless you need the VR (i.e. if your subject is NOT moving) I'd be tempted to go for an 80-200. At the time I was looking a VR I came up, so I went for that, but I honestly don't think I'd be worse off with an 80-200.

If you are shooting outdoors, you could use the extra cash to buy some of those expensive 77mm filters....

I heard also that the 80-200 is better if you want sunstars!
 
harryduns said:
That's true, but I still can't justify having a grand or more tied up in a lens right now!

From what I've read, it seems the AF-D vs AF-S thing doesn't matter so much on cameras with good built in AF like the D700. Think I may go for the 80-200 AD-F, which seem to go for about 500-600 on Ebay :) Thanks for your help all!
Click to expand...

The push-pull version (some like it, some don't) goes for nearly half that price.
 
harryduns said:
That's true, but I still can't justify having a grand or more tied up in a lens right now!

From what I've read, it seems the AF-D vs AF-S thing doesn't matter so much on cameras with good built in AF like the D700. Think I may go for the 80-200 AD-F, which seem to go for about 500-600 on Ebay :) Thanks for your help all!
Click to expand...

The push-pull version (some like it, some don't) goes for nearer 300-400.
 
The only '93-'97 push-pull one on Ebay right now seems overpriced at 499 buy it now, there are lots of the older 1988-1992 non-D ones on there.

I think I'll hold out for one of the two-ring AF-D ones, there's a few on there (one just ended for just over 570, which seemed a little steep looking at ended listings).
 
Two-ring is a great lens: only sold mine because I wanted VR. Optically I can't a difference between it and the VR1. AF is slightly slower and some people don't like the torquey noise when the 80-200 autofocuses, but its s nice lens a proper bulletproof. Think I sold mine for £550, which was the going rate late last year. Bought mine new on eBay from the US for £650.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top