70 - 200 f/2.8

NorthstaNder

NorthstaNder

NorthstaNder

Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Posts
2,686
Location
Ipswich, Suffolk
Hi all,

I'll be in a position to purchase some new gear in the coming weeks.

One lens I would really like is a 70-200 f/2.8. Budget will be around £1k.

Sigma's offering seems decent, but the weaker of the two I've been looking at. The other being the new Tamron (a little over budget admittedly).

Thing is, I'm also thinking about a second hand Nikkor version (VR 1 NOT the VR 2 as that's way over budget). Gray's have one in at the moment at £999 second hand.

These things are never simple, so I'm looking for a little advice or recommendations.

Thank you

Edit: If it helps, camera is a D7000
 
Funnily enough I bought a Sigma-70-200mm-f-2.8-DG-HSM-II-Macro last night 2nd hand but am waiting for it to arrive.
The new Sigma woth OS - which I assume is what you are looking at - get's decent reviews, but the Tamron and Nikkor versions do seem better for the money. If I was buying new the Sigma is probably not where my money would go.
 
I have the Nikon 70-200mm VR 1 and it is outstanding. With a D7000 I would take the Nikon no question.
 
I pretty much buy all my camera gear from Wex as their service has been excellent.

They have both the Nikon VR 70-200 in their used section well under your 1k budget along with a the Tamron variant for £759.

There is a Nikon VR II but it is over budget at £1199.
 
Nothing wrong with the VR in in the first generation. The newer generation gets maybe 1 stop better. Thing is VR is just not that useful anyway, doesn't stop subject blur and when possible you should use a tripod. More important is focus accuracy and tracking, image quality including microcontrast and out of focusing rendering (not just sharpness).
The matron is decent, just not better. It is also worth considering depreciation. Nikon lenses hold their value better so although you will pay more upfront 2nd hand, if you sell down the road you will liekly keep a higher percentage. I had a 80-200mm for 4 years and sold it for more than I paid for it. Sigma & Tamron lenses depreciate much faster
 
Last edited:
Agreed on the depreciation. Nikon lenses will always hold their value over a 3rd party lens. I too sold a 20mm f/1.8 for more than I paid for it new.
 
Do you need the f2.8

The reason I ask is that the 70-300mm is a cracking lens...That will also fit a FF..(found that out after I sold mine). I'm considering buying another to go with my D810. What I lose if stops I can make up with ISO.



These were taken with a D7000 and a 70-300mm Bear in mind it was my first camera


050

1036
 
D.P. said:
Nothing wrong with the VR in in the first generation. The newer generation gets maybe 1 stop better. Thing is VR is just not that useful anyway, doesn't stop subject blur and when possible you should use a tripod. More important is focus accuracy and tracking, image quality including microcontrast and out of focusing rendering (not just sharpness).
The matron is decent, just not better. It is also worth considering depreciation. Nikon lenses hold their value better so although you will pay more upfront 2nd hand, if you sell down the road you will liekly keep a higher percentage. I had a 80-200mm for 4 years and sold it for more than I paid for it. Sigma & Tamron lenses depreciate much faster
Click to expand...

Yeah I never understood the obsession with adding loads of weight and cost to a lens that's going to be shooting at 1/500 sec.
 
Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

In answer to matty.g - no I don't NEED f/2.8. But I would like it, as I enjoy shooting with a wide aperture.

I have 2 kids, so getting photo's of them is important to me. I also enjoy shooting wildlife where possible and I love lots of bokeh!! :)
 
If you want to shoot wildlife you want to be looking at a very different lens though, Nikon 200-500mm would be a good bet.
 
NorthstaNder said:
Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

In answer to matty.g - no I don't NEED f/2.8. But I would like it, as I enjoy shooting with a wide aperture.

I have 2 kids, so getting photo's of them is important to me. I also enjoy shooting wildlife where possible and I love lots of bokeh!! :)
Click to expand...


I have the Nikon trinity. The 70-200mm is a stonking lens. And I'll love to do a side by side comparison. Like I said before what it loses in stops can be made up for in ISO on MY D810. The D7000 not so much. I still have my D7000. It was my first camera and I doubt I'll part with it.

The 70-200 is a heavy lens to be carrying around all day though. Especially on a NON gripped Camera. As mentioned above the focus may not be as good nor the IQ. But those shots I spoilered were taken at 300mm on a D7000 and I think they are pretty damn good considering I had the camera less than a week for the kite surfer shot.

Would I swap my 70-200 for a 70-300....Not a chance. But I'd carry the 300 round all day..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom