Which 70-200

<p>Dear all,</p>

<p>I am about to buy a D800, mostly for nature / animal photography. <br>

I think I'll take a 50mm (I am coming from the rangerfinder world and cannot imagine having a camera without a 50 prime) and a 70-200.<br>

I am wondering which one I should take. Autofocus and image stabilization is a must.<br>

My dealer told me the new Tamron (SP 70-200 mm f/2,8 Di VC USD) is amazing.<br>

How does it compare to the Nikon 2.8 in real use ? <br />Can anyone give me his experience with the Nikkor AF-S 70-200 mm f/2,8 VR or the f/4 ?<br>

Thanks for sharing your experience.</p>

 

<p>Hi Didier,<br>

I recently replaced my Nikon 80-200 2.8 with the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR ED to use with my D800and the results are simply superb,the vr works brilliantly it is very sharp from f4 and the saving over the 2.8 version is considerable. If you don't need 2.8 the lens is near perfect.</p>

<p>If you do want the speed of f/2.8 I just purchased the Sigma version and it is very nice, it is on a Sony mount for my wife's a77 but it still shows the build finish and focus speed etc.. My friend at the camera store where I purchased it told me that he had taken a few Tamron's in for repairs, nice glass but reliability was maybe an issue. I also own other Tamron lenses and haven't had any problems yet. I also have heard about Sigma's outstanding customer service after the sale. Which ever you decided you'll love the lens. Oh the Sigma is on sale I believe for $1249.00. </p>

<p>How about taking a look at this recent thread? <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00c3op">Opinions on the various 70-200 mm lenses </a><br>

I reviewed Nikon's f4 version for photo.net last year: <a href="/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review">http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review</a><br>

For outdoor use, I think the f4 version is fine. f2.8 with VR is great if you use it indoors hand held.</p>

<p>I traded my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 towards the purchase of the Nikon 70-200mm f/4, on the basis of advice on photo.net, including a review by Shun, and have been very happy with it. I hated to lose the f/2.8, but in my particular case, the weight difference is very important, as I have tendinitis in my hands. I have no experience with the Tamron or Sigma alternatives.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My friend at the camera store where I purchased it told me that he had taken a few Tamron's in for repairs, nice glass but reliability was maybe an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kyle, I am sorry if I am insulting your friend, but I would never be comfortable with a salesman who is selling me a lens from one manufacturer saying that about the lenses from another manufacturer, particularly when you don't mention the store. And it goes against your own experience:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also own other Tamron lenses and haven't had any problems yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, that's far more valuable. As it happens, I own one Sigma lens and one Tamron lens, and neither has given me trouble. However, both your account and mine are based on the smallest possible sample sizes, and only become interesting when taken together with many other reports.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hector, I don't think your insulting at all. You aren't aware of the type of friendship I have. It is a long standing one and normally I wouldn't take the advice of a salesman I don't know. Our friendship goes outside of photography as well. No harm no foul.</p>

<p>I am a huge fan of the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR. I can't compare it to the F/4 because I have never used it but Shuns review was very positive. (I use it at F/2.8 frequently but not for wildlife). </p>

<p>Just to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion, what distance are you going to try to shoot? You may find the 200 a bit constrained even with a zillion megapixels to play with. </p>

<p>If the money works out for you, for the price of the 70-200 F/2.8 VR, you could get the 70-200 F/4 and the 300 F/4.</p>

<p>What really surprises me is that nobody has asked you to consider the AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR. It is expensive but very much better than its predecessor. If you are shooting outside it might just be what the doctor ordered if you want more reach.</p>

<p>Rick,<br>

I plan to use is in order to shoot animals (deers, ...), and I will be shooting with hunters (they will have guns, and me, a camera...).<br>

Maybe 200 is too constrained, I don't konw yet. Any complimentary inputs appreciated...<br>

I was interested in a 2.8 because of the narrow depth of field and accuracy. </p>

<p>All your inputs are very useful, thanks.<br>

Didier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I plan to use is in order to shoot animals (deers, ...)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are better off with a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR or 80-400mm AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS, last version, is probably your best ticket for this application. You can add a Sigma TC for longer reach. </p>

<p>You write you are "coming from the rangefinder world", which suggests you shoot or shot film. The Tamron (SP 70-200 mm f/2,8 Di VC USD) does not work properly with any Nikon film body. This may be a consideration if you still shoot any film.</p>

<p>I shoot an F100, was looking for a 70-200mm zoom and thought of the Tamron. I called Tamron Technical Support, asked if it worked on the F100, and was told it did not. Tech Support suggested the older non-VR 70-200. I think I will go with the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR which does work with all Nikon digital bodies and the F100/F5/F6. The price is about the same, and if you believe the reviews in<em> Popular Photography</em>, the image quality is about the same.</p>

 

<p>it's very difficult to complain about the 70-200 VRII. Expensive, but worth it, especially if you shoot action. whether it's long enough for your needs is another story.</p>

<p>Hmm this has me thinking, I have the the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and its really heavy, but takes great photos (I have the version I). The backgrounds at 2.8 are so creamy. But it is a heavy mother and hurts my back if I have to carry it all day.</p>

<p>You may also want to consider a refurbished AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I (although, I know Shun feels differently about refurbs), which sells for about the same price as the Tamron and Sigma offerings, new. I bought a Nikon-refurbished VR I from a local dealer a couple years ago for only $1,300 (perhaps they're harder to come by now, however). It looked brand-new!</p>

<p>As far as I can tell, it's one of my sharpest lenses, and at the time I bought it, I was specifically looking for a VR I (over a VR II), for its higher magnification at close-focus distances. The slightly higher amount of corner softness/vignetting doesn't bother me at all, and I do take advantage of its f/2.8 aperture at almost every opportunity. It basically just lives on my second FX body when shooting events.</p>

<p>However, while admittedly not having used either the Tamron or Sigma offerings, if deciding between the two, I would tend to go for the Sigma, based solely on the fact that their other recently introduced pack of lenses are pretty amazing (e.g., 35mm f/1.4, 150mm f/2.8).</p>

<p>Most good deer photos that I've seen have been shot at 300mm to 400mm. f/2.8 is useful to separate the animal from the vegetation or forest, and before sunrise / after sunset, or inside the forest. I think 300mm f/2.8 would be ideal if you want to move about without too much pain yet get the best possible results. If you don't have the budget for a new 300mm f/2.8, consider a second hand AF-S version; it might not have VR but fast shutter speed is really your friend. The 80-400/4.5-5.6 AF-S is portable and offers nice reach but I find it difficult to get consistent sharpness from it at slower shutter speeds, even using a tripod (it is excellent at fast shutter speeds though, but you may not be able to use those if light is dim given the maximum aperture is f/5.3-5.6 in the range of focal lengths you'd likely be using). If you're just getting started with this and don't have any lens in the 70-200 focal range then you may prefer the 80-400 because it covers such a wide range but at least I find it difficult to use in all but the brightest of light. With the 70-200 I think you'll find yourself cropping a lot, which is possible with the D800 but not ideal. The images from the 70-200/2.8 II at 200mm, f/2.8 are significantly sharper than those from the 1st version at the same settings so they are more easily cropped without too much quality loss.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 80-400/4.5-5.6 AF-S is portable and offers nice reach but I find it difficult to get consistent sharpness from it at slower shutter speeds, even using a tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, that has not been my experience. By now I have used three different samples of that lens. The test sample I received from Nikon USA and the new one I finally bought are both excellent. The refurb I had for two weeks is unsharp at 400mm, f5.6 but otherwise very good everywhere else as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, 400mm f5.6 is where I intend to use this lens most of the time. (More on the refurb on a separate thread.)</p>

<p>Because I had to test the refub very thoroughly, I have checked this lens at 400mm and down to as slow as 1/5 sec on a tripod, with 2-second shutter delay. As long as your subject doesn't move and your lens is well supported, free from vibration, the 80-400 should be sharp at all shutter speeds. If yours is sharp at high shutter speed, that means the optics is fine. I would investigate when it isn't at slow shutter speeds. Besides the usual vibration, tripod collar issues, I would switch off VR and check. Two years ago I had a refurb 70-300 AF-S VR (300mm, not 400mm) that apparently had faulty VR. It would mess up sharpness at slow shutter speeds even though VR was switched off.</p>

<p>BTW, I understand Ilkka is using the Kirk collar for the 80-400mm AF-S VR, so am I.</p>

<p>The 400mm/f2.8 is a nice lens but very expensive. It is also difficult to carry around. For the OP's deer photography, a zoom that reaches 400mm is probably the best compromise. Photography (and life) is all about compromises.</p>

<p>Thank you all for sharing your knowledge.<br>

I am still wondering what I will do, but things are getting much more clear !<br>

I have to find the answer to the reach question, but I am pretty convinced about having a wide aperture, as I am a great fan of boken and creamy backgrounds (I love my Leica 75/1.4).<br>

And the compromise is also about price...</p>

<p>Didier</p>

<p>don't forget new afs 80-400 has $400 off right now!!</p>

<p>My vote based on outdoor shotting of animals. Don't feel you need the f2.8</p>