Reading mode: Light Dark

70-200 zoom lens choice

Go to last post
B

Bob_w

New member
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Yorkshire, UK
New to this forum so bear with me please.

I've checked back in the postings (about 20 pages' worth) to see if there is already an answer to this.

I'm looking for a zoom in the 70-200 range for my D70. Current options are:

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR - very expensive, not sure if I can justify this
Mikkor 80-200 f2.8 - fairly expensive but seems a pretty good lens.

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - cheapest of the lot (but not by much) but still good from what I can ascertain.

The main use of the lens is for athletics (off-road running) and climbing shots.

Your thoughts/recommendations please.
 
You will never regret getting the 70-200 VR, it's really a great lens. I love mine even if I don't use it as much as I probably should. I got it primarily for hockey pics and the season is just starting again. The advice about looking for used 80-200 AFS is good, but they can easily go for more than $1000 US. A new 80-200 ED would cost less and is a very good lens and focusing speed is almost but not quite as fast as the AFS lenses. There have been some quality issues with the Sigma 70-200. If you do a search on these forums you will find people yhat have recieved a "good" copy of the lens are happy, but others complain of very soft images at 2.8.
 
I just got the Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR after trying three Sigma 70-200/2.8 lenses which showed severe softness and a strange glowing effect when shooting at 200 m and wide open.

The Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR is more expensive but I have not regretted buying it. It will serve you many years from now.

--
Nikon D200
Nikon AF-S 18-70/3.5-4.5
Nikon AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR
Nikon SB-600 Speedlight Flash
Nikon MB-D200 Battery Grip
 
I have the Nikon 70-200 VR and it really is a superb piece of optics as people have said on this forum ad nauseum. IMHO I think this lens is one of the strong arguments for going Nikon over Canon.

The 80-200/2.8 I heard is just about as good and I would recommend this route for the money although if you can afford it you should get the 70-200 without a doubt.

I have never tried it but read the Sigma is soft relative to the Niknon glass especially at 200mm. For sports the telephoto end is more important than the wide end so I would think this would be significant for you.
 
Check craigslist in your area. I just got real lucky and got a mint 80-200 AF-S for $650. They usually go for close to $1000 on e-bay. I've heard that the current 80-200 that Nikon makes is very good and focuses at about 80% of the AF-S version.
 
Remember, these lenses are heavy (great lenses, but heavy). The 80-200 2.8 weighs 46 oz, and the 70-200 vr weights 52 oz.

ken

--

Nikon D50, 18-55 mm DX, 18-70 dx, 50mm f/1.4, PS Ele 4, 6 books on editing photos, and one book on the D50.
 
Thanks for the replies folks - looks like the weight (literally by the sound of it) of opinion is for the Nikkor VR. Gulp! Better get saving my pennies then.

BTW, I am based in the UK so references to US shops/franchises/chains mean little to me but I'll check them out on the web anyway.
 
Ciao Bob,

most of the people here have or know very well the lenses you mentionated, but I'd focus something else. IMHO, optical differences between Sigma latest lens and the "classical" 70-200VRII aren't, at the end, SO evident. I mean, I would assume they both are good enough for EVERY photographer, optically speaking. What I would consider is: Nikkor is about twice the price of Sigma BUT its VR system allows you, roughly, to take about 8 times more sharp pictures than the sigma. If you think to use it in plain ways (during the day) as you stated, I'd go for the Sigma. Conversely, if you think to use also for inner ceremonies (weddings, night

life, night sport events etc.) maybe the VR could really make the difference, allowing you to shoot safely around 1/10s (dim-light) instead than 1/60s - 1/100s that you couldn't always get. You could of course increasing the sensibility of your camera or using a more sensitive film, but you would surely lose in sharpness, to get unwanted noise/grain.

Of course, if the Sigma would exit with a 70-200 OS soon, well, you could have the best solution at hand.

Let us know. Good luck. :)
Bob_w said:
New to this forum so bear with me please.

I've checked back in the postings (about 20 pages' worth) to see if
there is already an answer to this.

I'm looking for a zoom in the 70-200 range for my D70. Current
options are:

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR - very expensive, not sure if I can justify this
Mikkor 80-200 f2.8 - fairly expensive but seems a pretty good lens.
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - cheapest of the lot (but not by much) but still
good from what I can ascertain.

The main use of the lens is for athletics (off-road running) and
climbing shots.

Your thoughts/recommendations please.
Click to expand...
--

Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile

http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
 
The Niikon 80-200's and 70-200VR all have legendary status. If the 70-200VR is a bit steep for you now, I would definitely suggest the 2-ring Nikon 80-200 ED. I used it for many years before I got the 70-200VR. I sold mine about 6 months ago for about $650. Since all these lenses are impeccable, why even think about a possibly questionable 3rd party lens?
 
Bob - I just got the Nikkor 70-200 and I am amazed at the quality of the images I'm producing with it.

By the way, I bought it from Grays of Westminster at a very good price!
--
tfl.
http://www.pixelsnaps.com/gallery
 
Hi Shawn,

you are perfectly right, I agree with you, with 1/250s VR is useless but I'm not sure if at night you have so much light to get a such fast shot... And lighting usually can be very garbling for the camera exposure system, due to the several spot lights you have. However I have to confess that I don't know how much american sport arenas are lighted, so mine was just an opinion. :)
Shawn Clark (LE) said:
For night sports shutter speeds of 1/250-1/500s are needed to
prevent motion blur, in those cases VR would not be needed because
you are already at a shutter speed above where lens shake shows.
--
Shawn
http://www.lazyeights.net
Click to expand...
--

Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile

http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos
 
Bob_w:

This IS a Nikon forum so you will get a lot of Nikkor raves. "why settle for second best?" will always precede the urging to buy the most expensive lens the writer has been able to afford .... and that can be quite a bit.

Sigma (and any other non-Nikkor lens) will be said to be inferior with quality control issues. When I did my research, it was my understanding that the Nikkor 80-200 and Sigma 70-200 yield about the same IQ, but the Sigma has HSM and the Nikkor did not (i.e., no AFS).

The softness of the Sigma at f/2.8 and 200 mm has been discussed many times before and is evident in the MTF tests. I've noticed it myself in my somewhat controlled tests, but it doesn't seem to be much of a factor in the field. At any other focal length or aperture, it's fine. I'll be glad to upload some pics or you can have a look at some of my old posts.

All my lenses and, in particular, my Nikkor primes are also soft wide open .... it's a standard phenomena.

I don't know anything at all about the Nikkor VR --- I use these for sports, so VR or OS is not that useful and you are looking at a 70% price jump. The thing to check is its native IQ compared to the others and then decide whether you are willing to pay for the name and the VR.

All these lenses are heavy and large.

It sounds like you may or may not need very fast focus. Off-road running doesn't sound like things are whizzing by, so you might be able to get by w/o AFS in the 80-200.

Climbing suggests that

(a) you won't have a tripod
(b) things are moving even slower
(c) weight might be an issue
(d) you may always be at the big focal lengths

This is smelling like the VR if the weight isn't a problem. Otherwise, the Nikkor 80-200 might be a good compromise.

Good luck,
msc
Bob_w said:
New to this forum so bear with me please.

I've checked back in the postings (about 20 pages' worth) to see if
there is already an answer to this.

I'm looking for a zoom in the 70-200 range for my D70. Current
options are:

Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR - very expensive, not sure if I can justify this
Mikkor 80-200 f2.8 - fairly expensive but seems a pretty good lens.
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - cheapest of the lot (but not by much) but still
good from what I can ascertain.

The main use of the lens is for athletics (off-road running) and
climbing shots.

Your thoughts/recommendations please.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mark, Since you've owned both lenses,if you take away the afs and the vr features how do you think the 80 200 and the 70 200vr compare opticaly? I have read that they are to close to call. Thanks, Jay
 
bobcat3610 said:
Hi Mark, Since you've owned both lenses,if you take away the afs
and the vr features how do you think the 80 200 and the 70 200vr
compare opticaly? I have read that they are to close to call.
Thanks, Jay
Click to expand...
Well I'm not ususally one who does extensive testing with my lenses. But my impression is there wasn't much if any difference optically moving to the 70-200VR. I was still using the 80-200 for travel before I finally sold it (since I was "afraid" to take the 70-200VR away!), and the images are pretty much comparable I'd say. Someone who has spent more time looking for specific differences might be able to give you more detail. I did get used to the AF-S though and the regular AF seemed a bit more "clunky", but I would still recommend the non AF-S 80-200 to anyone who is looking for a less expensive alternative. I'm a big proponent for buying only Nikon glass, so I would take a regular AF Nikkor over a 3rd party "AF-S", that's just me.
 
Bob:

I was in your situation, and with all the raves here I 'bit the bullet' and sprung for the 70-200vr. And I have to tell you honestly that I have never looked back and not regretted one penny -- the pictures it produces are downright stunning ! But here's the rub - I can routinely (with good handholding technique) knock off pictures at full zoom (200mm) at 1/20 of a second.....but rights, you just should not be able to do this....but you can with VR ! It is that good. HOWEVER, as previously mentioned, if you focus is sports, the VR won't help at all....

Based upon everything you've said, I would also point you towards the 80-200. Optically (I've heard) very close -- and at about half the price of the big VR (and with a bit less weight) I'm sure it would serve you well...

Good luck,
Jd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top