WEX Deal: Save 500 on the Sony A7R Mark II

Which Lens would you buy ?

Dear All Nikonians
Two DX CAMERAS D7100 D5100
Present Lenses

I have A Nikon Prime 35mm F1.8 ---a 50 mm Prime F 2.8 PLUS A
Kit DX AF-S 55-200 f 4-5.6---AF-S KIT DX18-55MM f3.5-5.6 and a Wide angle Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.

there are two lenses I am interested in but I cannot afford both .

first: Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 AF-S ED VRII
Second: New Tamron 150mm-600mm Telephoto F5.6.1 FOR Nikon

The amount of money is not the factor I am a little concerned about the Tamron being F5.6 is it to slow and is more suited to static shots as apposed to BIF for example ??
Any help would be much appreciated !!

The Nikon is very fast but has not got the range for BIF and the Tamron has but not the Speed at F5.6.
Regards Brian

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

MrGoatsmilk 12 1.5k England
10 May 2014 2:41PM
Out of the 2 I would go 70-200 F2.8

I use Canon and had a Sigma 50-500 F4-6.3 which I sold to buy a Sigma EX 70-200mm F2.8 the 2.8 is far better than the F4-6.3 yes the reach was good but it had to be quite bright in order to use it, the F2.8 is better not only at grabbing more light but the optics are better and the results and far superior.

If you ever need more reach you could always get a 2x if really needed. My 2.8 came with a 2x and in all honesty I never feel the need for it.

Sooty_1 10 1.5k 221 United Kingdom
10 May 2014 2:44PM
You really need to make the choice based on what you want most. To sum it up, you have a choice of much longer reach but much slower lens, versus a much faster, better quality and easier to use lens.
By the way, the Tamron is a variable aperture, so it's only f/5.6 at the shorter end, but f/6.3 at the longer end, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a little optimistic too.

You will get as many different opinions as people who answer you. I would go for the Nikon, as I rarely need that kind of reach and the shorter zoom has a much wider aperture and better handling. It will be much easier to use and I have many more uses for it. The image quality is considerably better too, but then I prefer to use marque lenses anyway (usually better colour balance, build quality and compatibility).

As I said, you need to decide which you need/want most.

thewilliam 11 6.1k
10 May 2014 3:03PM
Brian, you seem desperate for advice because you've asked the same question under another heading.

With large and heavy lenses, unless you're young and fit, you won'r want to carry them far. Look up the weight of your proposed lenses and carry the appropriate number of bricks in your camera bag when you next go for a walk!
23 May 2014 11:22AM
The Nikon, so good you can cut your self with it !
kaybee 16 7.2k 26 Scotland
23 May 2014 8:08PM
Look at the Tamron 70-200mm - cheaper and just as good as the Nikon (better in some respects)
User_Removed 6 328 United Kingdom
23 May 2014 8:11PM
I will be buying the Tamron lens, if it ever gets to suppliers Smile but then I have a 300 f2.8 for closeup quality stuff.

For out and out quality the Nikkor 70-200 cannot be beaten, but the 200mm range is severely limiting for wildlife shooting, uless you are a ninja and can get very close with fieldcraft Smile

For little more than the price of the 70-200 you could get a Nikkor 70-300 afs vr g if ed and the Tamron.

The 70-300 has long been acknowledged as a very decent lens at a reasnable cost (we have two)

In the end it's your money, your choice - good luck with whatever you decide.

BTW- the Tamron is an f5-6.3 not a 5.6
DerekL 15 221 24 England
23 May 2014 9:14PM
Be aware, the Tamron 150mm-600mm is in back order with many suppliers in the UK at the moment.
User_Removed 6 328 United Kingdom
24 May 2014 12:59PM
Quite so - we're reasonably expecting to purchase one early next year, as it does not loo like they will be available generally until after the summer, but who knows....

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.