Nikon 70-200 f2.8 advice

E

Englishman

Messages
288
Edit My Images
Yes
I am shooting more and more sports and as the weather and light worsen I am in need of a faster lens. So it's out with the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 and time to invest in a f2.8....

Now I've looked and the competition seems to be..

a) Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens Price £1625

b) Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II Price £649

I know the Sigma doesn't have VR (but since I mainly shoot football and motorsport I understand it's best to switch VR off) but on a D90 is the Nikon really worth an extra £1000!!???

HELP :bang:
 
Hi Mate,

Just few cents from my experience....

I have done alot of airshows and abit of Motorsport so hopefully i will be of some help

I started with the Nikon 70-300D 4-5.6 I used that for a couple of years and like you wanted to move the F2.8 glass so I brought a 80-200 Push Pull Nikon F2.8 which didnt have AFS or VR and It worked well for me for about a year. Then i broke the aperture ring on it and needed a replacement so i got the twin barrell 80-200 again non AFS

These 2 lensese were both great, very sharp, good focus and beautiful bokeh on them, When I started doing alot of airshows the 200mm was too short and it wasnt a good option to add a tc to the non AFS lens.

I borrowed a Sigma 70-200 HSM lens F2.8 and it was a good lens, sharp and snappy but I found that I had to stop down at least one stop to be critically sharp.

I brought a 70-200 VR1 AFS lens and a pair of 1.4 and 1.7 tc and this is what I have now. This lens without a converter is critically sharp wide open and I cant fault it at all. With the 1.7x you have to stop down to F5.6 or zoom only to 190 to avoid ghosting though

As for VR, I leave it on but not on Active. I have found that with slower Shutter speeds it has actually increased my bagger rate with panning shots.

Some people disagree, but i can only offer what i have expereince

Good Luck
 
I would personally go with the nikon for the vr. How about picking up a used 70-200 vr mk1? Can be had for 950 in good condition.

If you are going to be shooting in low light it just makes sense to me to have vr. When ever ive turned vr off on my 70-200 at anywhere near slow shutter speeds the difference is night and day.
 
Englishman said:
Now I've looked and the competition seems to be..
a) Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens Price £1625

b) Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II Price £649
Click to expand...

Absolutely no competition - the Nikkor 70-200mm VR11 is a fantastic lens - that is the one to buy! Worth every penny.
 
awp said:
Absolutely no competition - the Nikkor 70-200mm VR11 is a fantastic lens - that is the one to buy! Worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Not if you dont have FX if (as he is) you are using a DX sensor save yourself alot of money and get the VR1

you wont notice any difference
 
If you want the VRI version I have a page saved at home of a site selling a couple 2nd hand I think for lower than £1000 I'm not 100% sure but you'll be fine with the VRI version because it was originally designed for DX cameras so you won't get vignetting unless you put it on a FF camera.

And I would says it's deffo worth the extra £1000. Besides being alot stronger than the Sigma, it's sharper and a bit more weather resistant.

I've been told the bokeh on the sigma is slightly grainy too.
 
Last edited:
I've had both the Nikon vr1 and now the vr2. The simple answer is, if you can afford the vr2, get it!
It actually makes no difference whether you use it on dx or fx. It is better on both. I have the D300 and D3s and have used both lenses on both bodies.
It is sharper, takes a 2 x converter better. Have a look at this link to see the ebnefits of vr for you. Even with sports.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm

It's worth looking at all of the bits on the header actually.


Kev.
 
Compelling arguments in favour of the Nikkor. Only you can decide whether the extra £££'s over the Siggy is good value.
Must admit that when deciding which lens to buy for myself it was between the VR1 or VR2. Went with VR1, very happy with it...but would have bought the VR2 if funds at the time allowed it.
 
Thanks for all the advice. Overwhelming support for the Nikon.
Going to see if I can find a VR1 for sale (Adam if you have those links please can you share with me?)

Ade
 
Ive got a Sigma 70-200 HSM Mk1 (has a reputation for being the sharpest version) and a Nikon 70-200 VR1

Nikkon VR1 wins out every time.

VR2 is a fair improvement on the VR1 but really hard to quantify it's also £6-700 more expensive.

There's a few people on here that have switched from VR1 to VR2 and rave about it, no one's had a bad word to say on the VR2 and gone back to a VR1.
 
Last edited:
If sport is your thing, then one of the BIG swinging factors would be weather sealing on the Nikon over the Sigma. As for which Nikon, yes, of course the VRII is better in every way, but that doesn't suddenly make the VRI a bad lens, it's still brilliant and if its what you can afford, I doubt you will regret the expenditure. ;)
 
Without doubt save for the Nikon glass, it is worth paying that extra and will hold its value better. I think in your mind if you are thinking about the VRII now you will regret if you buy the Sigma and then six months down the line will probably be looking to get the VRII, so false economy. Why not try the VRI? prices have levelled out a little now and you will get back virtually what you paid for it, if cost is an issue getting the VRII.
 
yes it is worth it. depending on how much you like your pictures. nothing but nikon will do for me! the 70 - 200 f2.8 was the first pro lens i got and it still amazes me to this day.
 
The Sigma will probably actually cost you nearly the same in real terms in the long run, it will probably depreciate about the same as the Nikon in actual £'s.
 
Englishman said:
I am shooting more and more sports and as the weather and light worsen I am in need of a faster lens. So it's out with the Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 and time to invest in a f2.8....

Now I've looked and the competition seems to be..

a) Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens Price £1625

b) Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM II Price £649

I know the Sigma doesn't have VR (but since I mainly shoot football and motorsport I understand it's best to switch VR off) but on a D90 is the Nikon really worth an extra £1000!!???

HELP :bang:
Click to expand...

While I'm not a particularly big fan of Sigma - I hear that sigma have just released the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM. Price differential approximately 300-400 pounds I believe.

However if the prices are that close I would probably opt for the VR II Nikkor as thats pretty much proven tech whereas the Sigma model is not and they (Sigma) also have their awful legacy regarding quality control from lens to lens.
 
JasonRS said:
Ive got a Sigma 70-200 HSM Mk1 (has a reputation for being the sharpest version) and a Nikon 70-200 VR1

Nikkon VR1 wins out every time.

VR2 is a fair improvement on the VR1 but really hard to quantify it's also £6-700 more expensive.

There's a few people on here that have switched from VR1 to VR2 and rave about it, no one's had a bad word to say on the VR2 and gone back to a VR1.
Click to expand...

I think the most of the 6-700 extra you pay on the VRII is that you don't get vignetting on FX or DX. Where as if you used VRI on a FX you get a little.
Not used them both but I don't think theres that much difference in sharpness between the two VRI and VRII.
If hes only ever going to own a DX body he should be fine with the VRI and will do very well for a fair few years. If already making plans to move in to the FX DSLR then it could be worth getting the VRII now.
But then again, if you buy the VRI and then when you have enough cash for the VRII and want to move into the full frame DSLR, theres no reason why you couldn't sell the VRI for £50-100 less than you bought it for. Basically paying £50-100 for renting the VRI for however long you choose to keep it, in theory.

http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/products/secondhand.php
Thats the page for the VRI
£1375 sounds a little expensive to be honest. I thought it was a little cheaper but they also do interest free finance.

I sometimes use mpbphotographic.co.uk aswell but doesn't look like they have any 70-200's right now.

Jessops also offer the VRII for about 245 a month interest free or 123 a month interest free.

DigitalRev are also reliable http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-70...es_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item5889daeb7e
Used them to get my D700 and 50mm 1.4 for less than £1800 and the link I gave you on their eBay site also has optional free 3 and 7 year warranty
 
Last edited:
Probably worth listening to those who have used both.

I had the VR1 for 4 years. Good lens and the vignetting on FX isn't an issue for people work IMO. The VR is a generation behind though, and the AF needed sorting. It wasn't stellar wide open either.

The VR2 addressed all these issues. It's superb wide open and has a clarity that the VR1 can't hope to match. It's far superior with flare and the AF consistently more accurate. I've had the VR2 for about 8 months now IIRC and it's a very, very good lens.

Pricey but a different class to the Sigma.
 
I brought mine in june and paid £875 on eBay for my Vr1

wouldnt go back and using a cropped sensor i have no need to sorry about vignetting :)
 
Couldn't resist the childish jab eh?
FYI he asked for the links so I gave them to him with some extra info.
 
I bought an old Nikon 80-200 F2.8, must be 15yrs old and still pin sharp... cost me £350 !!
I use it for footy and Equestrian work amongst others..
 
i have a 70-200 F2.8 VR the first one and its great lens, i use it of on a D300 and its great, i borrow a D700 now and again and its faultless on that too....

you can still get these around but the VR2 is better on FX so many say.
 
Jessops do it for £1639 - but you get 4% cashback via quidco excluding VAT so that would be..

Approx £1573.00 - not bad!

I've bought a few things from Jessops via Quidco and they have always paid out - takes approx 3 months.
 
hi everyone

I just thought I'd resurrect this thread rather than start a very similar new thread.

I would primarily use a 70-200 f2.8 at concerts/gigs, sometimes inside for larger venues, or when you have to shoot from a way back.

I'm not sure I can justify spending £1600 on a Nikon VRII, but I'd rather spend £1600 if I'm going to spend £1000 on a 2nd hand VRI.

So am looking at the Sigma/Tamron alternatives at about £600 new / £400 SH.

I'll probably upgrade to the VRII one day, but think I'd rather spend money on a SH Tamron/Sigma 70-200, maybe a a second D90 and still have a LOT of change!

So has anyone got a Sigma/Tamron 70-200 f2.8, or would recommend one over the other? also are there different versions of these to look out for?
 
Last edited:
Not used them, but, understand that the Tamron is pretty good, the big thing against it is the AF is slower than Nikon.
 
cambsno said:
Not used them, but, understand that the Tamron is pretty good, the big thing against it is the AF is slower than Nikon.
Click to expand...

hiya Simon... yeah I think both makes will have a slower AF, so will have to brace for that!

I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which has given me some brilliant results and I've not really had any issues with it.
I also have a Sigma 10-20 which I've been equally happy with!

so have no preference for either.

the Sigma 70-200 HSM II does seem more ergonomic and aesthetically pleasing.
 
JezSutton said:
I bought an old Nikon 80-200 F2.8, must be 15yrs old and still pin sharp... cost me £350 !!
I use it for footy and Equestrian work amongst others..
Click to expand...

I got one new a few months back (grey import from camerabox)

Superb lens for the money!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top