Nikon 70-200mm 2.8

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
As this lens is nearly 3x the cost of the independents, is the quality so much better? Or is it because of the VR feature thats bumping the price up so much?

I'm looking for a lens with publication quality results. (I think I already know this answer to my question:thinking:)

What do I need more, the Mac Book Pro that spends most of its life in the cupboard or a lens that'll help me fill the frame with my muses?

Spose it's a no brainer really!
 
I love my 80-200, it's just super sharp at 2.8 and i don't miss the VR
 
You pay for the quality and complexity of the glass plus the build quality.

If you can't afford it look at the Sigma/ Tamron options as pretty close on IQ or look at earlier Nikon 80-200 as jpd300 says.
 
PsiFox said:
You pay for the quality and complexity of the glass plus the build quality.

If you can't afford it look at the Sigma/ Tamron options as pretty close on IQ or look at earlier Nikon 80-200 as jpd300 says.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Sigma option is close in terms of IQ. Look at the earlier Nikon 80-200 for not much more money then the sigma if that is the issue
 
80-200mm AF-D and AF-S lenses have excellent optics, the AF-S being the faster focussing of the two.
 
In comparison with the alternatives, is the extra expense justified when it comes to the 70-200VR?

I've used an 80-200 2.8 AFS and that's a pretty darn good lens and I wouldn't discount buying one at all but the 70-200's AF performance is plenty faster, the colour reproduction is far more accurate and it's a considerably lighter lens.

Your requirements, budget and expectations can only answer the question really.
 
Tamron is there for IQ, but it's slow on AF (if you're doing action this may be an issue) and can also hunt on AF - I use mine on manual focus most of the time, though it's mechanism for switching is really good.
 
What would you use it for photographing ?
Whereabouts in Surry are you, I have the Nikon 70-200 and would be happy to meet up and let you try if you are close enough, I'm on the Surrey/Sussex border
 
Thanks folks. I kinda knew which direction this was going to lead me, bankrupt!
I'm going to need as fast an auto focus as I can get, and frankly the best quality. I suspect if I don't get the nikon 70-200mm, I'll only regret it. Better start raising some cash on fleabay.

Gremlin, thanks for the offer. I'm in Cranleigh. I've seen the results of this lens, so I know its good, was just wondering if the others came near it.
 
treeman said:
Thanks folks. I kinda knew which direction this was going to lead me, bankrupt!
I'm going to need as fast an auto focus as I can get, and frankly the best quality. I suspect if I don't get the nikon 70-200mm, I'll only regret it. Better start raising some cash on fleabay.

Gremlin, thanks for the offer. I'm in Cranleigh. I've seen the results of this lens, so I know its good, was just wondering if the others came near it.
Click to expand...

I've been lusting after this lens for a good while as well, this thread has just confirmed to me that an extra £2k will have to be found from somewhere or I'll never be happy!! Cheers!! :lol:
 
I had the Sigma then, when I bought the Nikon 70-200vr, I realised that my Sigma just wasnt up to the quality of the Nikon.

I also had a Nikon 80-200AFD, good lens but a few questions about its IQ in certain conditions, I sent mine back to the shop. But, the best lens I had ( and sold!!) was a Nikon 80-200 AFS. Easily as good as the VR lens at less than half the price and so well balanced, I never missed VR.
If you can get an AF-S version of the 80-200, get it and keep it.

Allan
 
treeman said:
Thanks folks. I kinda knew which direction this was going to lead me, bankrupt!
I'm going to need as fast an auto focus as I can get, and frankly the best quality. I suspect if I don't get the nikon 70-200mm, I'll only regret it
Click to expand...

Yup, the others are beaten hands down by the Nikon. If you want the best possible results, thats what you need.

I'm guessing you want to shoot action looking at your avatar and if so AF speed is king...
 
Again i went from the Sigma to Nikon 70-200 VR and the difference is very noticable

As said the price covers both optics and build quality, the build quality on the more expensive Nikon lenses are fantastic
 
treeman said:
Gremlin, thanks for the offer. I'm in Cranleigh. I've seen the results of this lens, so I know its good, was just wondering if the others came near it.
Click to expand...

Well I'm only 10 minutes down the road if want to try before you invest, you won't be disappointed it's a superb lens :thumbs:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
In comparison with the alternatives, is the extra expense justified when it comes to the 70-200VR?

I've used an 80-200 2.8 AFS and that's a pretty darn good lens and I wouldn't discount buying one at all but the 70-200's AF performance is plenty faster, the colour reproduction is far more accurate and it's a considerably lighter lens.

Your requirements, budget and expectations can only answer the question really.
Click to expand...

Can't beat advice from experience with both.

I own the 70-200, it's damned amazing. So, so sharp wide open at any focal length.

Remember - the poor man pays twice :)
 
jpd300 said:
I love my 80-200, it's just super sharp at 2.8 and i don't miss the VR
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Bought my 80-200mm AF-D a few weeks back off fleabay and can honestly say it's the best lens of that focal length at sub-£1000 I've played with. The VR version will probably be better, as will the focussing be faster on the AF-S version, but for the money the 'basic' version is great. Oh, and I shoot for magazines so the quality isn't an issue. :)
 
specialman said:
Totally agree. Bought my 80-200mm AF-D a few weeks back off fleabay and can honestly say it's the best lens of that focal length at sub-£1000 I've played with. The VR version will probably be better, as will the focussing be faster on the AF-S version, but for the money the 'basic' version is great. Oh, and I shoot for magazines so the quality isn't an issue. :)
Click to expand...

The 80-200 f/2.8 is a bargain, even at the £700 it costs new nowadays :thumbs:
 
I had the Tamron 70-200f2.8 and yes a/f was slow compared to others but the quality was superb I wish I still had it and it never had problems with aircraft photography and they are pretty quick.
 
The 70-200 is a great lens but im having real problems with softness the now on it....
Espically at lowlight things.
 
It's an extremely capable lens. On a D300 it should be flawless, although perhaps slightly too long for general use. On the D700 it exhibits softness in the corners and vignetting, but is still perfect for portraiture. Bokeh is excellent. I am seriously considering selling mine now before the Mk2 version is released in the next couple of months. It has been due for replacement ever since the D3 was introduced. Wait a month or two and you may find the second hand market flooded with them. However, I fully expect the Mk2 will be nudging £1,800, and that will discourage many FX owners from upgrading for what may be a marginal improvement in IQ. I don't imagine nano crystal coat will make a huge difference to this lens's usefulness, although improved VR and a larger front element most certainly will. I expect the Mk1 will stabilise at around £1,100 secondhand, so we're not talking trivial money to trade up. All totally open to conjecture, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top