Nikon ? -200mm 2.8 vr lens choices

alpina

alpina

Messages
1,179
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Had the good fortune to attend a Nikon CLS demo at college and they had quite a few lenses to play with on the table.

Stupidly I tried what I think was a 70-200 ed af vr beauty. I was immediately blown away with. It was inappropriate at the time to ask questions so I put it back down.

Since then I have been researching and I reckon that this is the lens I should be getting, really cant believe the quality and feel of it.

Now I am pretty sure it was a 70-200mm f2 version but after seeing that these are going for plus £800.00 I have started to look at the 80-200-mm 2.8version.VR

Is the difference going to be disappointing? Hard question I know.

I have a Sigma 80-400mm that I never use mainly because of the weight but I was thinking of selling this and adding £200 ish to fund the Nikon.

Without saying what my siggy is worth would you think this is do-abe or should I just get on with my work.
 
There's no such thing as an f2 version they're all f2.8, great lenses with a very entheusiastic following. A new one will cost you northwards of £1500 these days, a secondhand one for a fair bit less and a non VR version for considerably less making them good bargains.

I've had mine for years but it hardly ever gets used, mainly due to its size and weight, when i do use it though I remember why I haven't sold it yet.
 
Hairyduck said:
There's no such thing as an f2 version they're all f2.8, great lenses with a very entheusiastic following. A new one will cost you northwards of £1500 these days, a secondhand one for a fair bit less and a non VR version for considerably less making them good bargains.

I've had mine for years but it hardly ever gets used, mainly due to its size and weight, when i do use it though I remember why I haven't sold it yet.
Click to expand...

Aha Knew this would get harder.

So they are 2.8 hmm:thumbs: `Interested that you find it heavy though.
 
THe 70-200 is f2.8 not f2. The fixed 200mm is f2 but is a lot more money. The 80-200 f2.8 is not vr. I wish I could find a 70-200 for £800. The 80-200 is an excellent lens and alot of people go for this instead of the 70-200.
Also it is worth looking at the sigma 70-200 f2.8 which is a lot cheaper £650 and is a very capable lens.
 
Davec223 said:
THe 70-200 is f2.8 not f2. The fixed 200mm is f2 but is a lot more money. The 80-200 f2.8 is not vr. I wish I could find a 70-200 for £800. The 80-200 is an excellent lens and alot of people go for this instead of the 70-200.
Also it is worth looking at the sigma 70-200 f2.8 which is a lot cheaper £650 and is a very capable lens.
Click to expand...

Yes its looking like my budget is going to be the 80-200 ....but surprised its not VR though.

So I am right in thinking that to get VR it cost waaay more?
 
alpina said:
Yes its looking like my budget is going to be the 80-200 ....but surprised its not VR though.

So I am right in thinking that to get VR it cost waaay more?
Click to expand...

Why are you supprised it's not vr? If it had vr it would be the same price as the 70-200. Also be aware that there are a couple of versions, one is the push pull version which is older and the later one is a conventional zoom. Then there are 2 versions of the later model afd and the afs the afs is the most expensive the afd still an excellent lens just a little slower to focus and the push pull is the cheapest.
 
Got ya. So its looking like a afd or afs 80-200mm , thanks Dave, I will go google.
 
Better off with the Sigma f2.8 IMHO, if funds don't run to the Nikon 70-200.
 
I'd go for the nikon afd or afs over the Sigma, but then I'm not a huge fan of sigma stuff
 
It depends on what type of photography you're going to be doing...

For my D700, I bought the 24-70 2.8 with the intention of buying the 70-200 2.8 later on, but now i'm having second thoughts because I don't feel it's that appropriate for weddings with one body. I mean, I don't mind changing lenses, but around the 70mm mark is a pretty important focal length and you cant afford to spend that few seconds changing lenses at certain moments..

I may sell the 24-70 2.8 and buy something else that can cover a wide enough range at a fast aperture, but the thing is, Nikon dont have that many lenses for that... Canon have a wider, better range like the 28-200, 28-300L and the 35-350L...
 
jayeshpp said:
It depends on what type of photography you're going to be doing...

For my D700, I bought the 24-70 2.8 with the intention of buying the 70-200 2.8 later on, but now i'm having second thoughts because I don't feel it's that appropriate for weddings with one body. I mean, I don't mind changing lenses, but around the 70mm mark is a pretty important focal length and you cant afford to spend that few seconds changing lenses at certain moments..

I may sell the 24-70 2.8 and buy something else that can cover a wide enough range at a fast aperture, but the thing is, Nikon dont have that many lenses for that... Canon have a wider, better range like the 28-200, 28-300L and the 35-350L...
Click to expand...

Mainly Portraiture and street stuff, I already have a Sigma 24-70 2.8 & a Nikon 50mm 1.8 that I use regularly.
 
I have just bought the Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 which is brilliant. There are two versions the push pull version which is cheaper at around 300-400 and the normal version which is more expensive, mine was £500 inc case etc. I am blown away by the quality but cannot actually compare to the Sigma as I only have the Nikon. There is someone selling the 70-200 in the for sales section at about £1200.
 
I have the 70-200VR and I'm blown away by it every time I use it. It's super sharp wide open, the IQ is superb and the focus is amazingly quick. I don't think I'll ever sell it. As someone else mentioned, it's not a light lens by any means but the quality of shot I get far outweighs this small inconvenience!

Here's a page showing the history of the Nikon 80-200 and the various versions!
 
cowasaki said:
I have just bought the Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 which is brilliant. There are two versions the push pull version which is cheaper at around 300-400 and the normal version which is more expensive, mine was £500 inc case etc. I am blown away by the quality but cannot actually compare to the Sigma as I only have the Nikon. There is someone selling the 70-200 in the for sales section at about £1200.
Click to expand...


Thanks, There is no way I can go to the price of a 70-200 :eek:

I think I will put an ad in the classified and see if anyone fancies some form of trade for my Sigma 80-400 .

Really appreciate all the input guys
 
cowasaki said:
I have just bought the Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 which is brilliant. There are two versions the push pull version which is cheaper at around 300-400 and the normal version which is more expensive, mine was £500 inc case etc.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify for the OP, there is the:

  • 80-200mm AF 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 2-ring
  • 80-200mm AF-S 2-ring

Hope this helps.
 
sdb123 said:
Just to clarify for the OP, there is the:

  • 80-200mm AF 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 2-ring
  • 80-200mm AF-S 2-ring

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Oo mine's the last one !

EDIT: Err no, mine is the third one :)
 
sdb123 said:
Just to clarify for the OP, there is the:

  • 80-200mm AF 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 1-ring (push/pull zoom)
  • 80-200mm AF-D 2-ring
  • 80-200mm AF-S 2-ring

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Heh...clear as mud:cuckoo:.. Thanks, I think I am looking at the third down the list

Mind-you if I got a deal like cowaski then I could afford the fourth.
 
alpina said:
Heh...clear as mud:cuckoo:.. Thanks, I think I am looking at the third down the list

Mind-you if I got a deal like cowaski then I could afford the fourth.
Click to expand...

I didn't get a deal like that, it's the third one I have but it's great!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top