Nikon fit 70-200 around £400

EspressoJunkie

EspressoJunkie

Messages
2,886
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
My transformation to the dark side(cue Darth Vader music...) is underway, with a D300 on its way.

However, being a Canon man until now I'm really unfamiliar with Nikon glass. I've got my eye on a Tamron 17-50 for my walkabout lens, but I'm not sure of what to look for in a 70-200.Canon was easy, youd look for a big white lens and you know you'll be happy!

Nikon however seems to have a gap at the price point that I'm looking at (£400ish S/H). The only lens I've seen in this price point is the Sigma 70-200 2.8 second hand. The speed of that lens appeals massively, but is there any other lens in that price point that I should be looking at, or should I just start hunting for a Sigma now?

Also does anyone know the difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Sigmas?

Thanks
 
I'd recommend expanding the budget a touch and looking for a second hand Nikon 80-200, a great performer and very solidly built.
 
A Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (two ring) would set you back around £500-550, which I realise is a bit over your budget but it really is worth paying that little bit extra to get what is essentially the same optics as in the 70-200 VR (MKI). You can also pick up the earlier "one touch" 80-200 for around the £300-350 mark if your budget is set in stone....
 
I have the Canon fit Sigma and it's absolutely razor sharp. It did need ever so slight micro adjust on the 50d as it was slightly front focusing but that was very quickly remedied and the images it produces are fantastic.

AF is very fast too. I think the differences in the mk 1 and 2 are slightly improved optics and HSM but there isn't much in it.
 
at that price i would buy

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

should have enough for a 50mm as well.
 
straycat said:
at that price i would buy

Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

should have enough for a 50mm as well.
Click to expand...

I really like the idea of a constant 2.8 though, I guess its a toss up between the sigma or the 80-200. I've not got the money for either yet though, so I guess I've got plenty of time to decide!
 
i would only buy nikon myself
look at the thread on the 70-300 on nikon cafe its :cool:
 
If you're talking about a 'true' (DX) 70-200mm range (for the D300), I can heartily recommend a little gem from Tokina :).

The ATX PRO 50-135mm f/2.8 is a metal/rubber bodied zoom, with 67mm filter thread (a good size for Nikon glass) and capable of producing some incredible results :eek:. I actually left my D700 and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII lens at home when I went on holiday this year and took the D90 and Tokina instead and the results were stunning.

It is pretty hard to find one though, as it's discontinued :|, but perhaps you actually wanted the 105-300mm (equivalent) range that an FX 70-200mm lens would give, anyway :thinking:!?
 
I have a sigma 70-200 hsm II and love it, I got this as I couldn't find a 80-200 Nikon at the time, am I disappointed, No not at all. You are right about having a constant 2.8 I never realized how much I would use 2.8, but surfice to say it is a lot.
 
Yep...can't believe how often I use f2.8. Whatever you do...get fast glass...,
 
I have a sigma 70-200 ex dg hsm that I picked up from here for £200 and its fantastic. Lovely Sharp images and the bokeh is gorgeous
 
I went for the Sigma 70-200 HSM mkII version instead of the Nikon 80-200 because i was using a Nikon D5000 at that time and the sigma will offer auto focus for my small body. I have the D7000 now and the sigma is even better on the D7000 than my old D5000 and i happy with the image, fast focus, sharp images (most sharp is around 70-135 range in my eyes), abit of soft focus when reach 200mm.

I haven't try the nikon 80-200 yet but i think i should try my mates lens. Either way both is very good lens ....... i think the nikon 80-200 is slightly heavier and bigger i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top