Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Which 70-200mm should I buy?


24 Aug 2014 4:20PM
Hi everyone,

I don't know which 70-200mm 2.8 to get. I first thought of the Tamron Non-VC version, which I've always liked since it's a bargain and it has awesome optical quality. My dislikes regarding that lens is the AF, which is slow and imprecise. I also wish it had VC, but for 770 dollars i find it a great package.

I decided I want to spend some more money, so I started looking at the Tamron VC version, which has incredible optical quality, and fast AF, along with the new VC function which is as good as nikon's VR. It costs twice as much as the Non-VC version, and it has more focusing distance (its not Macro). It also doesn't include the lens case. My main doubt is if it is worth spending that much money over the Non-VC version, because I can buy a lot of stuff with that money. I think I'll really appreciate the VC and the fast AF, but I don't know if that justifies spending twice as much.

The 70-200mm 2.8 is my favorite lens, so I wouldn't bother to spend a lot on it, but if I spend, I want to know that It is worth it, because with that difference I can get a D7100 instead of the D7000, and get some other accesories. I prefer to have a great 70-200mm than a D7100, but I don't want to spend unnecessary money.

Another option is the Nikon 80-200mm, which is old and doesn't have VR, but it has incredible image quality, and better resale value than the Tamrons. My other doubt is, do you think that the Tamron VC version will lower its price soon? I ask this because if this happens, I'll lose a lot of my hard earned dollars when reselling it.

Is the Nikon 80-200mm better than the 70-200mm non-vc? Should I go all the way up and buy a 70-200mm VC for twice the money?

I come from Canon and I had a 70-200mm F/4L without IS, which I loved. I don't like Canon cameras, that's why I'm buying Nikon.

I'll appreciate your help very much!
Thanks!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

StrayCat Plus
11 16.1k 2 Canada
24 Aug 2014 7:49PM
From what I've read about the Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR, it's a great lens, highly recommended. Much cheaper than the 2.8s and much more portable. I know the 2.8s are fantastic lenses, but they're also monsters.
24 Aug 2014 7:54PM

Quote:From what I've read about the Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR, it's a great lens, highly recommended. Much cheaper than the 2.8s and much more portable. I know the 2.8s are fantastic lenses, but they're also monsters.


Yes, I already had an f/4, but now I want to jump to a 2.8. I don't care much about the wight and size of the lens since i won't be my only lens. I'll only use it in some occasions. So what do you think about the 2.8s? Which one should I get?

Thanks!!
StrayCat Plus
11 16.1k 2 Canada
24 Aug 2014 8:00PM
There's a frequent contributor to one of my favorite bird sides, birdsasart.com, who uses the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. I'm not sure which one he uses. He is a pro, and does group field trips world wide. I've seen his work with the Sigma he uses, and it's as good as any I've ever seen.
24 Aug 2014 8:09PM
Thanks StrayCat, I have friends who had the Non-VC version and they took a lot of sharp pictures, that's why I wanted to buy it, but my main concern is ift it's worth spending those 740 dollars more.

Can somebody help me? I can't get to a conclusion.

Thanks to everyone!
StrayCat Plus
11 16.1k 2 Canada
24 Aug 2014 8:12PM
I had to change that to Sigma, he is sponsored by Sigma, here's his site, and what he has in his camera bag; http://www.robertotoole.com/index.php

He does use Nikon though.
thewilliam 6 5.1k
24 Aug 2014 8:54PM
Nikon have made many flavours of 80-200 and when I was choosing, something over 15 years back, I settled on the AFS.

The AFS focuses about a foot closer than the "ordinary lens and this is useful for a people photographer. Also, the focusing is lightning fast and silent.

As a vulgar professional, I try to get the right equipment at the outset and I'm still using the lens so it was a good choice. You'd spend far more by constantly chopping and changing your kit.
ChrisJD 5 99 Scotland
25 Aug 2014 8:02PM
The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 MKI is a great lens with DX sensors. You'll get a decent quality second hand one for much less than the MKII version.
25 Aug 2014 8:51PM
Hi guys, yes, the nikon 70-200mm is an awesome lens but it is way too expensive. I don't know if the new tamron is worth that much momey over the old one and if the 80-200mm is a better but than tje Old Tamron for 250 bucks more. Is there someone who has tried them and can help me to decide? Thanks!
discreetphoton 10 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2014 10:18AM
The new Tamron is worth every penny. I sold my old Nikon VRII to make room for the Tamron in my camera bag.
12 Oct 2014 10:57AM
Nikon 70-200mm, 2.8 Either VRI or II…the best lens in this range…Period...
thewilliam 6 5.1k
12 Oct 2014 11:26AM
Beware of the Mark 1 70-200 VR if you're using FX format because it doesn't perform too well in the corners. There's always a good reason when Nikon introduces an upgrade so soon after the original.

If you're happy to use a monopod, check out the 80-200 AFS which focuses faster and closer than its cheaper brethren. I wouldn't want to part with mine, nor would my wife part with her 70-200.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.