yet another telephoto lens question.......Sorry

T

Triggertrevor

Messages
46
Name
Kev
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all i'm new to this forum but what i see so far i really like......so Hello everyone.

My Dilemma is....what 70-200mm telephoto lens to buy.?

My background comes from shooting M43 gear (micro four thirds)
I have a panasonic G5 that i bought about a year ago to get me into photography and i really like the camera but over the past 4-5 months I've started shooting kids football games which i really enjoy.
So i bought panasonics flagship lens their 35-100 2.8 which is a fab lens but as most of you will know sports/tracking isn't one of M43's strongest points but it holds up pretty well in my eyes.
But now i want to take it to another level so i'm still keeping my m43 gear but just bought a Nikon D7000 with the Nikon battery grip to ad a bit of bulk to it for when i attach my 70-200 lens.

This is where you guys/gals come in, now i can't afford at the moment nikons 70-200 2.8 but i can afford sigma's or tamrons 70-200 2.8 so........?

which one would be best for my needs or could i get away with a f4 lens..?

I will be shooting outdoors all the time so hopefully light won't be an issue but rain might be in this country. lol
But i really want subject isolation and this is sometimes where the panasonic 35-100mm 2.8 lets me down.

So can someone please lead to down the right path.

Thanks again Kev
 
Firstly, don't bother with an f4 lens. For the price of the nikon f4 you could get an f2.8 either a nikon version 1 used or a new tamron or sigma. Come dim light you'll really appreciate the wider aperture.

What is your budget and which which particular lenses have you looked at? Each manufacturer makes different versions of their 70-200.

Of the current models the new tamron seems to be getting good reviews
 
pooley said:
Firstly, don't bother with an f4 lens. For the price of the nikon f4 you could get an f2.8 either a nikon version 1 used or a new tamron or sigma. Come dim light you'll really appreciate the wider aperture.

What is your budget and which which particular lenses have you looked at? Each manufacturer makes different versions of their 70-200.

Of the current models the new tamron seems to be getting good reviews
Click to expand...

Hi Mike thanks for getting back to me.

Am i right in saying Tamron have bought a mk 2 version out.? if so probably that version and on the sigma side the ex dg os hsm or the hsm ll without the stablization as i'm normally shooting above 1/1000th anyway.

The ore i research it the more miss leading info i get. I hear the tamron is sharper at the long end at 2.8 but then i've read that the tar on is a no no for sports.????

cheers Kev
 
One of the Nikon 80-200f 2.8 iterations would be my choice. 500 would get you a great lens.
 
pooley said:
You'll always get some misleading info and plenty of opinions if you look long enough!

First thing first though is what is your budget?[/quoteI

I'd say I spend the price of a new sigma/tamron.
Probably about £700

Cheers KevKev
Click to expand...
 
pooley said:
Firstly, don't bother with an f4 lens. For the price of the nikon f4 you could get an f2.8 either a nikon version 1 used or a new tamron or sigma. Come dim light you'll really appreciate the wider aperture.

What is your budget and which which particular lenses have you looked at? Each manufacturer makes different versions of their 70-200.

Of the current models the new tamron seems to be getting good reviews
Click to expand...

The benefit of the f/4 version is not just the cost. It's also significantly lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 versions. If the OP is shooting motorsport (I'm assuming as he's talking of 1/1000) then it probably won't matter but if he's using it as a general lend he wants to carry round with him a lot then that smaller size and weigh could be very useful over the extra stop you get with 2.8.
 
Amp34 said:
The benefit of the f/4 version is not just the cost. It's also significantly lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 versions. If the OP is shooting motorsport (I'm assuming as he's talking of 1/1000) then it probably won't matter but if he's using it as a general lend he wants to carry round with him a lot then that smaller size and weigh could be very useful over the extra stop you get with 2.8.
Click to expand...

Fair point regarding the weight, but the OP has mentioned kids football matches. F2.8 really is the way to go if you intend shooting at any time the sun is behind a cloud..

OK, now we're looking at around £700 I'd say you have 3 options. If you are happy to buy an import (whole new arguement but the actual lens is the same) then take a close look at the new tamron vc lens. Maybe contact a member on here called Phil Young who raves about his. Its £700 new at panamoz, possibly similar prices with other grey importers.

There is also a sigma OS lens to look at which you could pick up for a similar price. I'll let you read the reviews on this and the Tamron to decide which is best.

The 3rd option would be a used nikon 80-200mm f2.8. Brilliant lens but I'd strongly recommend the AF-S version over the AF-d if you intend to shoot sport. There is a significant difference in focussing speed between the 2 versions.

You won't want to use the stabilization in the lenses when shooting football, so turn it off, but the latest versions of the sigma and the tamron are both claimed to be better in the sharpness stakes, so I'd strongly suggest you get one of them should you choose to go the sigma/tamron route.

Not much more I can add really
 
Last edited:
Firstly u can't comment on any of Nikons offerings as I shoot Canon. However I was recently looking at the same dilemma and went for the Tamron 70-200 VC which is a bit over your budget (unless you're willing to look at grey imports). So that leaves the Sigma OS and the earlier Tamron, from the research I did it would be the Sigma, it was faster to focus, sharper and also has OS. If you have a search through the equipment thread, you will see numerous comments on the subject and in the reviews there is a real world test of the Tamron VC.
 
Amp34 said:
The benefit of the f/4 version is not just the cost. It's also significantly lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 versions. If the OP is shooting motorsport (I'm assuming as he's talking of 1/1000) then it probably won't matter but if he's using it as a general lend he wants to carry round with him a lot then that smaller size and weigh could be very useful over the extra stop you get with 2.8.
Click to expand...


Hi amp, no weight isn't an issue as I'll only be using this setup just o shoot football my carry around gears m43.

Cheers kev
 
pooley said:
Fair point regarding the weight, but the OP has mentioned kids football matches. F2.8 really is the way to go if you intend shooting at any time the sun is behind a cloud..

OK, now we're looking at around £700 I'd say you have 3 options. If you are happy to buy an import (whole new arguement but the actual lens is the same) then take a close look at the new tamron vc lens. Maybe contact a member on here called Phil Young who raves about his. Its £700 new at panamoz, possibly similar prices with other grey importers.

There is also a sigma OS lens to look at which you could pick up for a similar price. I'll let you read the reviews on this and the Tamron to decide which is best.

The 3rd option would be a used nikon 80-200mm f2.8. Brilliant lens but I'd strongly recommend the AF-S version over the AF-d if you intend to shoot sport. There is a significant difference in focussing speed between the 2 versions.

You won't want to use the stabilization in the lenses when shooting football, so turn it off, but the latest versions of the sigma and the tamron are both claimed to be better in the sharpness stakes, so I'd strongly suggest you get one of them should you choose to go the sigma/tamron route.

Not much more I can add really
Click to expand...

Cheers for that mike.

I'm a little unsure regarding grey imports just for the repair cost to a lens like this if anything was to go wrong.

Would I be lucky enough to pick up a secondhand Nikon for £700 as all the ones I've been looking at area £900+

Cheers kev
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Firstly u can't comment on any of Nikons offerings as I shoot Canon. However I was recently looking at the same dilemma and went for the Tamron 70-200 VC which is a bit over your budget (unless you're willing to look at grey imports). So that leaves the Sigma OS and the earlier Tamron, from the research I did it would be the Sigma, it was faster to focus, sharper and also has OS. If you have a search through the equipment thread, you will see numerous comments on the subject and in the reviews there is a real world test of the Tamron VC.
Click to expand...


Hi Chris what's your thoughts on your tamron as I can stretch a little for the right lens.

What do you shoot? If its sport do you have any images I can look at


Cheers kev
 
Triggertrevor said:
Cheers for that mike.

I'm a little unsure regarding grey imports just for the repair cost to a lens like this if anything was to go wrong.

Would I be lucky enough to pick up a secondhand Nikon for £700 as all the ones I've been looking at area £900+

Cheers kev
Click to expand...

Kev, there is always a bit of a gamble buying grey - that's totally your call. What I will say for sure though is for sport avoid the earlier Tamron. It's notoriously slow to focus, albeit very sharp when it gets things right.

There are not too many 80-200 af-s lenses knocking around second hand, but £700 is about right for one of them, don't confuse it with the mark 1 70-200 f2.8vr - that too is a cracking lens and should go for around £900 used.

Regarding the independent brands, if I was buying then I'd be looking at the new Tamron VC first, followed by the Sigma OS, then one of the older sigmas and lastly the older Tamron
 
I have mainly used it for wildlife, landscape and at a wedding so far, however I have been very impressed. The focus is very quick and accurate. Images are nice and sharp with lovely colours.
 
Right I have the chance to get the sigma hsm ll non os in good condition for £350 inc caps and case or the Nikon afs vr1 in good condition with caps case and box for £875.

It's going on a D7000 body

Decisions decisions

Help me out people.

Cheers Kev
 
pooley said:
Why not try the sigma on your body. If you like it then buy it and save some cash. No matter what we all advise, if you're happy with the results thats the main thing
Click to expand...


So True that, i just didn't want to buy the lens be disappointed with it then then have to sell it to buy the Nikon.

But like you said i'll not know till i try.

cheers Kev
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top