"older" 70-200 f2.8 - yay or nay

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,055
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I'm still thinking about a 70-200 for the wales rally in October..The light in the forests can be pretty poor

In all honesty, i don't have the money to spend £1000 on a lens at the moment so i was thinking about an older lens like the Tamron G1 ( i believe the Sigma 70-200 is not good but would appreciate feedback ) to go on my D500

As these can be picked up for less than £500, are they any good in terms of focusing speed, sharpness etc ?

Or am i wasting my time / money and should save for longer ?
 
Messages
6,492
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
#2
I don't know the Tamron, sorry.

I did have a couple of the Sigma 70-200 offerings. The OS one and the one prior to that. Both were decent in isolation, pretty sharp, particularly the OS, AF good but I think native Nikon is noticeably better, but I worry a bit about recommending them because they're both from an era where 'bad copies' seemed prevalent and in all honesty I think the Nikon 70-200 VR1 is a better lens in every way and not that much more money now. So I would personally say 'save up a tad more' but would be interesting to see what others say about the Tamron options.
 
Messages
3,914
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
You could go for a 1 touch Nikkor 80-200 f2.8.

Not the fastest to focus but if you get a good one sharp as a needle.

Wouldn't lose anything when moving it on either.

I had one on my D700 and was stellar.
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#5
You could go for a 1 touch Nikkor 80-200 f2.8.

Not the fastest to focus but if you get a good one sharp as a needle.

Wouldn't lose anything when moving it on either.

I had one on my D700 and was stellar.

I had the push-pull version of the 80-200, and later sold it when I was able to buy the 70-200 VRII, I swear the 80-200 was sharper and had better contrast, was sorry I sold it. I also had the Sigma 70-200 2.8, I hated that lens, can't really put a finger on why but just know I did. I have heard the Tamron 70-200, their old VC one, was much better
 
OP
OP
damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,055
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Thanks Keith but the VR2 is over budget at the moment.

So looking like a no to Sigma so hopefully some Tamron users can give me some info and shots they've taken
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#8
Thanks Keith but the VR2 is over budget at the moment.

So looking like a no to Sigma so hopefully some Tamron users can give me some info and shots they've taken
I've never used the original 70-200 so can't really say, but all i remember about the Sigma was it was noisey, sluggish and i didn't particularly like it's rendering - I vaguely remember it producing very pink-ish/magenta tones, I got the old 80-200 later and much preferred it
 
Messages
374
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
I had a tamron 70-200 VC (model before the g2) and it was very good. Focused nearly as fast as the Nikon vr2 and i could barely tell the difference between the lenses unless there was flare (different characteristics) It was a far bit sharper than the sigma 70-200 OS i tried at the same time. I didn't end up keeping the tamron long term as it didn't play well with my infrared work.

If there is a good copy for around 500 then i would look no further.
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#10
What's the budget? Looking around and it seems these lenses hold value very well, hard to find a bargain. Maybe put a wanted ad in classified here?
 
Messages
3,512
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I’d rent th vr2 for
Wales and then if you like it ,get the cash together.
Any other lens will always have you thinking what if....
Perfect for spr too....
 

wack61

I've got an itchy hatch
Messages
7,572
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
#17

OP Get it bought, ownership will be free , it's not what it costs it's what it's worth come sale time

Your other option is a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 , they are V heavy and focusing isn't up the AF-S speeds but I uses one for motorsport , the only AF issue I can remember is bikes coming straight at you , cars were never a problem as they're nowhere near as fast
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,277
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#22
I quite liked the Tamron G1, also had the VR2 which was also nice. The Sigma O.S was rubbish.

If it came down to a choice of the Sigma or anything else but the VR2 and VR3 I would choose the Tamron every time. Would definitely choose the G1 over the really old Nikon's and the older non V.C Tamron was also rubbish.

I can't comment on the G2 version as I haven't used it and I don't use a 70-200 any more.

The Tamron G1 even at new prices is excellent value for money, it is a very sharp lens wide open and the V.C is excellent. It doesn't take teleconverters though.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,512
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
@damianmkv As I said earlier this year, if the weather is good, I will be at the finals on Saturday - you are welcome to try my 70-200 vr2 then if that any help......
 
OP
OP
damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,055
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
@damianmkv As I said earlier this year, if the weather is good, I will be at the finals on Saturday - you are welcome to try my 70-200 vr2 then if that any help......
Thanks Mark (y) we should be there Saturday and Sunday...which reminds me I need to speak to the ticket office about the rain off from Easter
 
OP
OP
damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,055
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
I'd get the two touch AFD 80-200, plenty quick to focus, built like a tank with superb optics, can get them pretty cheap too.

Gaaahhh - af-s...af-d.. not even aware of these differences. I had a quick read and it said be aware of the afs squeak of death but not had a chance to look more than that yet
 
Messages
3,512
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
Thanks Mark (y) we should be there Saturday and Sunday...which reminds me I need to speak to the ticket office about the rain off from Easter
No probs, PM me the Friday and we will see what the weather promises.....

Off to Jersey Sunday for a week.
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#30
Gaaahhh - af-s...af-d.. not even aware of these differences. I had a quick read and it said be aware of the afs squeak of death but not had a chance to look more than that yet

The AF-S is the later one, not all that different to the first 70-200, they took over from there. The D will be noisier in use but optically they are identical, it will be slower to lock focus too.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,892
Edit My Images
No
#31
If in budget get the Nikon VR1, cracking lens on a crop body. If it’s not in budget why not buy one and then sell it after, wouldn’t lose much money if done wisely, and prob cheaper than renting.
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#33
I don't think it's within his budget lads, unless you can find a good bargain on the bay, I looked and they're still holding value today at around £800
 
Messages
13,353
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#35

The 85 1.8G was actually one of my favorite lenses, so simple, so good. It's not that mad a suggestion tbh, unless OP does shoot at 200 a lot, if he's more likely to be in the 100mm region then the 85 1.8 would actually be better - lighter - faster - and sharper IMO
 
Messages
5,826
Edit My Images
No
#36
don't go for the 3rd party poop or you will regret it
save and get a nikon 70-200 2.8 fan- fkn - tactic
 
Messages
14,892
Edit My Images
No
#39
I don't think it's within his budget lads, unless you can find a good bargain on the bay, I looked and they're still holding value today at around £800
A well used one can be had for just under £600, if he's happy buying one like this of course (y)
 
OP
OP
damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Messages
6,055
Edit My Images
Yes
#40
I've looked at that one...it may be a little too well used for me. New rubbers, new hood and postage will bring it to £650 and then I'll still think " that's a lot of money for something that looks like this".
 
Top