Nikon equivalent to Canon L 70-200 F4

J

jimbobc

Messages
291
Edit My Images
No
Hello,

My friend has just bought a Canon 70-200 F4 to go on his EOS 350D. I was really impressed at the sharpness and usability even without OS. I have a Nikon D90 and fancy something similar but where does it fit in the Nikon range? I see the 70-200 2.8 lenses (and the prices!) but what would provide me similar quality in the I guess £400-700 range?

Thanks
 
And there's the rub. Nikon don't do an f4 70-200. Personally, I think the 70-200F4L is by far the best value lens Canon produce....
 
As Andy says, Nikon don't do a 70-200 f/4, however for the same sort of money what they have is the 80-200 f/2.8, although if you wanted a new copy it would need to be an import as Nikon UK don't import it. Secondhand examples can be found for around the £500-600 mark and it's well worth seeking one out of you are on a budget as optically it's near enough identical to the first edition 70-200 VR....
 
I suppose the equivalent is the 70-300VR, but its no where near as good as the 70-200 F/4 and obviously doesn't have the fixed aperture
Im still amazed why Nikon dont make one, it would be in pretty much every photographer's bag who cant afford the 70-200 f/2.8.
 
Just had a quick browse that lens sounds interesting shame they are not VR. Not sure I would be that steady with 1.3kg lens.
 
jimbobc said:
Just had a quick browse that lens sounds interesting shame they are not VR. Not sure I would be that steady with 1.3kg lens.
Click to expand...

Nah, easy peesy! VR is for wimps :D (thats a joke, please don't start moaning)

Besides, you wanted something comparable to a 70-200 f4 non-IS... there you go :)
 
I can seriously recommend the 80-200 2.8 the sharpest lens i've ever used and would own one now if i still had nikon kit. If you decide to get one avoid the push pull as af is sloooow
the two touch is great at around 5-6 hundred or the af-s version is around £750
 
Dan74 said:
I can seriously recommend the 80-200 2.8 the sharpest lens i've ever used and would own one now if i still had nikon kit. If you decide to get one avoid the push pull as af is sloooow
the two touch is great at around 5-6 hundred or the af-s version is around £750
Click to expand...

The one touch's AF ain't that slow and if you're lucky you can one for under £300.

Sharpest lens I have ever owned and you could hammer nails in with it if the need ever arose.
 
If you can leave with something a bit shorter the 50-150 f/2.8 Sigma can be had for 450 new or around 300 s/h and it is a brilliant lens.
 
This lens and the 100-400 are two lenses that make me a little envious of canon users. Of course Nikon are superior in every other regard ;)

In answer to the question, I'd have thought the sigma 70-200 2.8 would be a nice equivalent in terms of pricing and is a useful stop faster.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
You may as well buy one of the earlier 70-200 f2.8 nikons for the price of the sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS
Click to expand...

Why?
 
jacob12_1993 said:
The nikon will be much better made if the 70-200 f2.8 OS is the same build as the non-os lens and you would still get VR
Click to expand...

But what's wrong with the build of the non OS?

I have one, it's very solidly built, fast and silent AF and pin sharp.
 
The coating when very quickly on my sigma 80-200mm mk-II :(, trader it in and took a lost on it,as it not a range i use that ofen,i a found an Nikon 70-210mm F4,which i am useing at the moment :).
 
Nikon made an 80-200mm f4.5 (replaced by an f4.0) back in the days when dinosaurs walked the earth. I still have mine and use it on an F2 and FM, and occasionally on my 30D. Completely manual of course.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
The sigma coating can be very 'flaky', I have one too, but would still prefer the nikon if I was spending £1K
Click to expand...

Not encountered the flakey coating, had mine for a while and used a lot!

Maybe the mkII macro version doesn't suffer from it?
 
Last edited:
simonblue said:
The coating when very quickly on my sigma 80-200mm mk-II :(, trader it in and took a lost on it,as it not a range i use that ofen,i a found an Nikon 70-210mm F4,which i am useing at the moment :).
Click to expand...

Eh? You don't use the 80-200 (do you mean 70-200?) range much so then bought a 70-210? By my reckoning, that's pretty much the same range, lol!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Eh? You don't use the 80-200 (do you mean 70-200?) range much so then bought a 70-210? By my reckoning, that's pretty much the same range, lol!
Click to expand...

:lol: Could of worded that better.

Brought the sigma 70-200mm F2.8 mk-II,but due to weight,and it not being a range i use a lot,never took it out much,so brought the lighter Nikon 70-210mm F4.

Then an 14-24mm F2.8 Nikon came up for sale,so i decided,to trade in the sigma,that when i found all the coating had started to go :eek:.

So had to take a price drop on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top