Torn over telephoto lenses. A little help?

[mark_fukui]

<p>Hi guys, <br>

I started photography this past summer, and i really enjoy it. I know it doesn't seem like a long time, but i am ready to upgrade my telephoto lens. After doing a lot of research and reading tons of reviews i came down to three telephoto lenses--the nikon 80-200 f2.8, sigma 70-200 f2.8 macro, and tamron 70-200 f2.8 macro. I have already thrown out the nikon 70-200 vr i and vr ii because of price. After all being a college study and spending $2000 on a lens are not conducive. Sorry forgot to mention this earlier, but i have a Nikon D60--it does not autofocus with the nikon 80-200 f2.8--with the kit 18-55 vr and 55-200 vr lenses. As one can tell price is an issue hear even though i wish it wasn't. Basically this is what it comes down to when i see these three telephoto lenses side by side. The nikon--in my mind--is the best option, and it very good in the optics and build quality regions; but it costs <strong>$1100</strong> new. I heard the af/mf can break very easily, but these have been few and far in between. This is my impression of the sigma after reading many reviews: lowest optics of the three, great HSM motor, great build quality, and low price. The tamron comes off as having a shaky build(this includes that wack push pull af/mf ring that i heard jams up a lot), <strong>great optics</strong>, light weight, and the cheapest. Just to point out i will not be able to auto focus with the nikon, but the the sigma and tamron will allow me to. Really though even the photography teacher at my school said i'll be manual focusing more and more as i keep on shooting, and i can already see that working its way into my shots. (I really enjoy manual focusing as i feel it gives me much more creativity. Plus the nikon D60 3 point af system is not the best) The plus side to the nikon is that later down the road if i upgrade to a better body i will be able to autofocus. There's my short little story about the conundrum i am in at the moment. If anyone has experience with one or more of these lenses i would love to hear your opinion. Thanks!<br>

P.S. I do not want to buy the sigma or tamron used because i fear of their glass loosing its quality over time. Also i am afraid of their quality control. I am considering buying the nikon 80-200 used, but i figure why not pay the extra $200 to get the full 3 or 4 year warranty? I forget how many years it lasts. Also buying used in general scares me. Especially if i am going to spend $700 on a lens. </p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>Really though even the photography teacher at my school said <em>I'll be manual focusing more and more as I keep on shooting</em>, and I can already see that working its way into my shots - not if your shooting sports that involve unpredictable movements.<br>

So make sure you are certain about not wanting autofocus. I have the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (VR and VRII) and the only time I use manually focus is when the lens can't autofocus (usually in low light situations were even contemplating the shot is highly debatable). In short, the autofocus is quicker and more accurate than me in virtually all situations (also nice to know for later in life should my eyes begin to fail me).</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'll be manual focusing more and more as I keep on shooting</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br />Well, i think manual focussing on a D60 with a 2.8. long lens can be quite a challenge, especially when this lens is quite heavy like the 80-200 f2.8 ....<br />I would first ask then : <br />- Does it have to be a fast zoom lens, or woud a , lets say 180mm f2.8 also do the job ? this would then also an "affordable " and much lighter option ( although still a manual focussing on a d60 ...)<br />Apart from that, i have never had any quality issiues with Sigma Lenses, but maybe this is sheer luck .. :-) ,</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I went through the same choice, with one major difference: I owned a D80. That made me end up with the Nikon, the other option was the previous Sigma 70-200 (Tamron wasn't released yet). I wasn't impressed by the Sigma at f/2.8. So, pure for build and optical, my money would still go to the Nikon...But.... The previous 2 posts are right. These are seriously heavy lenses and manual focussing with those takes a bit more technique already. To have the mediocre viewfinder of the D60 next, it doesn't make it a lot easier. So, good advice to focus manually more, but I don't think the setup you'd end up with is very suited indeed.<br>

Also, the D60 is light and small, and in my view will not balance very well with these heavy lenses. More difficult to hand-hold.<br>

Another point to consider: your current gear is light and easy to carry. You're going to add 1 to 1,2 kilos to it. Will you be happy carrying it around? I know the attraction of these f/2.8 lenses, but their weight is a serious consideration.<br>

In short: great as these lenses are, they're not without drawbacks.</p>

<p>So, what is not clear at all: do you need a f/2.8 lens for what you are doing? Wouldn't something like a 70-300VR fit in the picture? In what ways does the 55-200VR let you down? What are the actual reasons for wanting to upgrade, and for what will you use the lens mostly?</p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>I respect your option but cannot stop wondering why you want to keep an outdated body like the D60 and buy a pro-grade zoom 70-200 f2.8?<br>

If I were you, I'd sell the D60, buy an used D90 and after that your AF problem would be solved AND because of higher ISO capabilities and VR you might be able to squeeze similar low-light performances from the consumer grade 70-300mm VR. Am I wrong?</p>

 

[sjoerd_leeuwenberg]

<p>I agree with the others that manual focus with a 2.8 tele and a D60 is often not an option. I have the older 80-200 and a D90 and even there I hardly ever use manual focus. Except sometimes for static objects.<br /> There is a Nikon AFS 80-200 to consider, this will autofocus on the D60. But please go out to a shop somewhere and try with such a heavy lens, maybe even with a nikon 70-200, just to get an idea of the size and weight. It is very tiring to hold such a lens for longer periods. Also try the option Marius and wouter suggested and see how they compare, I think the additional extras of the D90 with the 70-300 are more usable than a heavy 2.8 lens. But IQ wise of course the 2.8 wins.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I've banged on about the Sigma before but I'll say it again here FWIW.</p>

<p>I had the 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM ver. I lens- the current lens is ver. II. The only reason I now shoot with the Nikkor 70-200mm VR I lens is that it was given to me as a gift- otherwise I'd still be happily using the Sigma. My original choice was between the 80-200mm Nikkor and the 70-200mm Sigma - again a price related decision.</p>

<p>The Sigma 70-200mm is an excellent lens, equal in sharpness to the Nikkor 70-200mm VR I, quieter HSM autofocusing and well built. Contrary to many reports on Sigma lenses that I read, my 70-200mm Sigma rendered slightly warmer colours than the Nikkor lenses do - neither here nor there for me. Forget about the 'macro' designation, all that means is that this lens focuses a little closer than previous models, it is by no way shape or form a real macro lens contender- none of these tele zooms are.</p>

<p>If you dont forsee the need for VR in conjunction with slow shutter speeds then you miss out on very little by opting for the Sigma. Nothing wrong with keeping an older body. I believe one "spends" money on bodies but one "invests" in glass.......</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>no question in my mind that at this point in your development as a photographer, the 70-300 VR lens is the best option. not the best lens, mind you, but the best choice under the circumstances (i can't comment on the new 55-300 DX lens, as i have no experience with it).<br>

good, long telephoto lenses <em>cost</em>. they are also big and heavy. the 70-300 VR is slow (f/5.6 at 300mm), but in adequate light it produces good, sharp photos. it won't weigh you down, either. it would make a good combo with a D60, while you gain experience -- and decide whether you have the interest and finances to pursue higher-end options down the road.<br>

at one time i was in your position, and bought the 80-200 to mount on a D40. i used it in spite of the challenging nature of manual focus with a small viewfinder, until one day i struggled to get what should have been an easy shot. that's when i upgraded to a D80. if the 70-300 VR had been recommended to me then, i'd have bought it and been much happier, i think. i pass that along for what it's worth...</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>You should go to a local store and try to manual focus with the 80-200mm. At the same time you will understand how big and heavy it is coupled to your body. I do a fair amount of manual focus with the D200 and currently D700. The viewfinder is very important when trying to manual focus. What can you not do with your current setup? Do you have a good tripod setup?</p>

[fhmillard]

<p>Manual focus is more important to me lately, but I use a D300 which has live view allowing magnification of scene on LCD for very precise focusing.</p>

[mark_fukui]

<p>Thanks for all the responses! I didn’t expect so many to come so quickly.</p>

<p><strong>Greg Kowalczewski</strong>- You bring up a good point about unpredictable sports. I wanted to get into sports and I know this will be a challenge without autofocus. But, on the bright side, I know it can be done as many people before af lenses came out did this. The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 are good at auto focusing. The only problem I see with the tamron is the reviews mentioned that it plain misses auto focusing a lot. That was in the lab. I am not sure how it would fair in a low light situations like a gymnasium.</p>

<p><strong>C.P.M van het Kaar</strong>- I realize my body is small and the lenses I am thinking of are big. I tried focusing one of my friends 70-200 L lenses and it is much different from what I am used to. I am a lot more shaky, but hopefully in the long run I can adapt new ways to hold my lens to help with that. More muscles would help as well : P I thought about the 180 f2.8, but I really want the zoom range in the lens. If I had to get a prime at this moment I would get the 50mm f1.8. I just feel like the zoom is more versatile. It’s nice to know you haven’t had quality issues from Sigma. Makes me feel a little bit better about buying one of their lenses.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter Willemse</strong>- Yes I agree. Weight seems to be coming up a lot. I don’t believe I would mind carrying it around. Do you think the sheer weight of the lens put on to my small body would set me back in terms of picture I could “get” or take? I have considered the 70-300 f5.6, but I feel like I would be in the same position I am now just I would have 100mm extra on my focal length. I don’t feel a need for a longer lens(although with the crop factor the lenses I am think of would turn into 100-300mm zooms), and I the main thing I wanted was the f2.8. Currently I find myself in gymnasiums and outside with low light struggling to get a good action shot. Also the f2.8 I feel would allow me to work with DOF and I am very interested to take portraits with a f2.8.<br>

To answer your questions I believe the 70-300 does not fit into the picture. This reason is this, same position as I am in now, just 100mm longer and a few hundred bucks down the drain. I like and enjoy the 55-200mm vr, but it’s the f2.8 that I really wanted. It only lets me down in low light situations and some vigenetting I think it creeping into some of my shots. Sports and DOF are very attractive. For the last question if I did get the closer focus telephotos I would use that lens for most of my shots. Granted I might not use it for landscapes, but I have heard of people doing that and would love to try it out. I would love to use the lens for sports, while learning how to manual focus them(I realize this will be frustrating, but I am hoping I will learn), the upcoming lu’au at my school, portraits, and my general photography. Thanks for the questions. It helped a lot.</p>

<p><strong>Marius Mirea</strong>- Good question. Well I have always learned, which it makes sense to me, that the lens really makes the photo. It would be really nice to have a upgraded body, but I think a new lens should come first. True. A better body would solve my af problem. I have VR on my lenses now and I have tried taking picture at high iso settings. I disgust myself at the pictures I produce and just can’t look at them because of the noise. Granted if I was doing spy stuff I wouldn’t mind :P Also I don’t believe you are wrong when you asked that question. I just can’t stand really high iso settings.</p>

<p><strong>Sjoerd Leeuwenberg</strong>- I have heard about the Nikon 80-200 f.28 af and that it costs about $800 more than the non af version. I have to check the price on that. If it is anywhere close to that much more money it isn’t worth it for me. It terms of trying out a lens I should ask my friend to see if I can hold his 70-200 L lens and manual focus some shots with it. I hope that can help me decide about the weight factor as I cannot get to a store conveniently. I don’t have a car. I will consider the D90 and 70-300 vr combo. Although I believe in my case it would probably be the D90 with a mid range zoom or the 50mm f1.8. </p>

<p>I have to go to class now( i have anatomy lab). I will get back to you all later on today. Once again thanks for the input. It's really helping me along this decision making process. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>“…i have a Nikon D60--it does not autofocus with the nikon 80-200 f2.8...”<br>

　<br>

Yes it does if you get the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED internal focus AF-S because it has a built-in focus motor. This lens, however, is only available on the used market. KEH.com has them ranging in price from $900 in bargain condition to $1300 in like new condition.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p>“I wanted to get into sports and I know this will be a challenge without autofocus. But, on the bright side, I know it can be done as many people before af lenses came out did this.”<br>

　<br>

Yes they did! However, they were not using DX digital cameras with their smaller viewfinders that make it more difficult to focus manually.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>Get the 80-200 2.8. I've had the 55-200 VR, the AF 75-300, the 18-200 VR, tested the 70-300 VR, I still have a 70-210 lying around. The 80-200 blows them all away. I understand the weight and size can be a problem, but I sold all of my tele zooms just because of the 80-200 (I kept the 70-210 for sentimental reasons though), once you've been there you don't want to go back.</p>

<p>Manual focusing can be very challenging on a DX body, but at least you won't be looking through a 5.6 aperture. Bottom line is there's no substitute for getting more light into the sensor.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>+1 for the Nikon 70-300mm VR.</p>

<p>It's a great lens and will fit nicely with your D60. The f/2.8 lenses are professional grade lenses and are built to be paired with professional grade cameras. Personally, I shoot a D300s and the only times I attach my big, heavy tele-lenses I've either got a mono/tripod attached to the lens or I'm hand holding with a grip on the camera to make the whole setup more balanced.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents, but I think getting out and hefting these lenses attached to your D60 will make my point clear.</p>

<p>RS </p>

[mark_fukui]

<p><strong>Matthew Brennan</strong>- I appreciate the feedback. I do also realize that these telephoto lenses are not true macros with a 1:1 magnification ratio. I believe the sigma and tamron are in the area of 1:3. It’s nice to know though that you get a little closer to your subject to crop the shot. I do feel a need for VR especially with a nice constant f2.8.</p>

<p><strong>William Pahnelas</strong>- I respect your feedback, but I’m going to have to disagree about the 70-300 vr being the best lens for me right now. I would much rather keep the money and stick with my 55-200 vr which has the same f-ranges I believe. The f5.6 is great in sunny conditions, but being Oregon it always rains and you can count on there not being sun for weeks. : ( Back home I can count on the sun in Hawaii. :D To sum up why I don’t want to get the VR 70-300 is because I feel like I am in the same position I am now except I threw a few hundred bucks down the drain because I’m still stuck with the f5.6. I am seriously going to consider the weight factor with my D60.</p>

<p><strong>Carl Becker</strong>- I can’t get to a camera store, but I can try a friend’s canon 70-200mm f2.8. Hopefully manual focusing with that and trying to hold it for a while will give me a better idea about the weight. My set up right now is very kit-ish. My tripod set up is not good and I would not trust a new 70-200 lens on it. It’s good enough to hold my kit lenses and body. Maybe a monopod would be in my future purchases if I got a larger 70-200mm lens.</p>

<p><strong>Frank Millard</strong>- Thanks for bringing me to the attention of the lack of a large view finder in my D60. :D</p>

<p><strong>John Narsuitus</strong>- <strong>First Comment.</strong> I don’t think I want to spend the extra money for an af-s Nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens. I can barely justify the $1000 new price tag to myself for the non af-s version. Thanks for the website suggestion. <strong>Second Comment.</strong> Thanks for bringing me to the attention of my small D60 view finder. I didn’t realize they were very different. Having a large view finder would be nice for manual focusing…. Hopefully my eyes hold out. :P</p>

<p><strong>Emilio Gutierrez</strong>- Yes! That’s exactly what I am thinking.</p>

<p><strong>Richard Snow</strong>- Thank you for your opinion. I have written over a few times I believe on why I don’t want the 70-300mm vr. Does it seem valid and reasonable? </p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Mark, yes, your point against the 70-300VR makes sense. It does not mitigate the points against the f/2.8 lenses, though.<br>

Maybe a somewhat overlooked option: Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM. Lots smaller and lighter, bit shorter, still f/2.8. Could be a decent "in between" solution, the lens has a good reputation and fits your budget.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Mark,<br>

I was also , like Wouter, just thinking : if its about the light, then the Sigma 50-150 2.8 makes sense...<br>

Its light and versatile, fast af, works on d40 because its HSM, and leaves you with a bit more "left over" money for your next whish, because it costs just half the money of any 70/80-200 f2.8 option... ( and <em>no</em>, i do not sell Sigma, or any other kind of equipment... :-) ).</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Another thought is lose your current camera, get the D90 used or refurbished and then buy the manual focus 80-200 f4. Yes it's funky, but it actually takes great pics. I've got an even older one and it works great on the D200, though I've since got a 70-200. But for starting out, its really a good lens and was used a lot by PJs and Sports photographers before any of the autofocus stuff came out. It's not a bad learning tool either to manual focus etc. Though what Emilio said makes sense to.</p>

[tveck]

Considering the problem that you have to use AF-S lenses, perhaps sell you D40 and get a D50, which should be under $200. Then it is possible to buy older 2.8 AF or AF 2.8D (second-hand) lenses. I own more than 10 second-hand lenses and never met any problems. For say $1000 you can buy almost anything you want.

[eric_arnold]

<p>mark, seems like you've thought out your choices and know the pros/cons.</p>

<p>not being able to MF with an 80-200 would be a dealbreaker, i think, since that really limits the effectiveness, at least until you can upgrade from the d60. you're basically ass-out for sports and wildlife, or anything which moves, which is what people tend to use those lenses for.you also have to think about the fact that the nikkor--or any 70- or 80-200, actually, is not going to balance very well on a d60. plus if you have to hand-hold and MF such a heavy beast, you're adding to the laboriousness of your endeavors considerably. the nikkor is a classic lens, i know, but this is a time to be utilitarian, not romantic.</p>

<p>either the sigma or the tamron would work for you. the tamron has pretty good IQ but s-l-o-w- AF. it's great for landscape and portraits, not so great for sports/PJ.</p>

<p>and, apparently, there are some good copies of the sigma floating around, or at least some happy campers who have it.</p>

<p>however, i'll second the opinion that the 50-150 would be a killer lens in your situation. it's a slept-on gem, treasured by those who own it. fast, compact, excellent IQ, manual-override, HSM--everything but VR/OS, basically. the optics are reputedly better than the sigma 70-200, but basically, it's a lens that can do it all, from sports/concerts @ 2.8 to portraits to landscapes at 5.6-8. and, it's well within your price range, which would let you get some ND grads and/or a polarizer if you had to spend a G (you can always spend less).</p>

<p>for not much more than the slow 70-300 VR, you get 2.8 in a lens about the same size and weight. trust me, you want 2.8 for beautiful OoF backgrounds and subject isolation.</p><div></div>

[carl_becker2]

<p>IMHO it is the combination of the body and lens that make for a better tool. Before AF photographers created sports images. Probably with great technique and some luck. I know when I manual focus through the viewfinder it is not 100% successful. Sometimes a lot less. Using live view is great when things are static and success rate can be very high. You can also get a focus screen to aid in manual focus from Katz eye but I think your best value would be to purchase a lens that will AF with your current body or up grade your body to have a focus motor so that you have more choices. Newer bodies can provide better ISO and less CA as well as better controls. I have gone from a D70 to a D200 and now a D700. It is easy to change ISO or WB or lens settings for non cpu lenses as well as many other items. A good body choice can allow for long term lens usage that will give results you can be happy with. Monopods do not work for me so I have finally purchased very good light tripods that should last me for as long as I am around. If the Sigma 50-150mm will AF on your body and needs then seriously consider it. It has many good reads here.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>

<p></p>

<br>

 

<p>Just for your information, there is a notice on the B&H website that the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 has been discontinued by the manufacturer and is no longer available.<br>

　<br>

Also, on eBay, there is a used one selling for less than $500.</p>

<br>

.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Just for your information, there is a notice on the B&H website that the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 has been discontinued by the manufacturer and is no longer available</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's odd, it is still on the Sigma websites, and in the shops here in the Netherlands at the normal prices...<br>

If yuo look it up at the Sigma Website an click "Find A Dealer"it shows several dealers in the US that should have it in stock... ??<br>

<a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-apo-hsm-ii-sigma">http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50-150mm-f28-ex-dc-apo-hsm-ii-sigma</a></p>

[mark_fukui]

<p><strong>Wouter Willemse</strong>- This is true. The 70-200 f2.8 will be difficult to hand hold and manual focus. If I have an af motor the weight of the lens paired with my body will be awkward. Thanks for your suggestion. I am researching the sigma 50-150 f2.8 now. The only thing that makes me sad is that it’s only $50 cheaper than the sigma 70-200 f2.8 macro.</p>

<p><strong>C.P.M van het Kaar</strong>- Once again thanks for the suggestion. I am researching it. The only thing that worries me is the quality of the optics, relatively high price(on amazon), and its discontinuation.</p>

<p><strong>Barry Fisher</strong>- I don’t think I will want to sell my body. If anything I would sell my 55-200 vr lens. I think an extra body could come very handy if I ever was paid to cover an event. I’ll look over the 80-200 f4. Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Tad van Eck</strong>- Just like my response to Barry Fisher I would like to keep a body so I could have an extra. I would much rather part with my 55-200 vr. Second hand lenses scare me. Maybe it’s a habit I should get over, maybe not. It worries me way too much to spend maybe $600 for a used item that might be defective.</p>

<p><strong>Eric Arnold</strong>- Thanks I really try to know my stuff before I make any big decisions like this. I think AF is becoming a bigger deciding factor than I thought it would be. Like you said for sports the AF would be quite lovely. If I only could MF, I wouldn’t be able to get into sports very easily. I want to mention the prices of the 70-200mm and the 50-150 as I find this interesting. The sigma 50-150 is $750 for the cannon version and $700 for the Pentax version. These are prices for a new lens. The sigma 70-200 nikon version is $800 new on amazon. Lets say this price difference was universal. Would I get the 70-200? Are there any other sites with good return policies that I could buy the lens at? Also if it is being discontinued will the price go up? I know this is the case for the Nikon d60 I have on amazon. I use lenstip.com for a lot of my comparison and research. I am not sure if this is a good site(please let me know your thoughts about it). It seems to me the IQ for the 70-200 and the 50-150 are relatively similar. Build quality for the lenses are both good. So the question is if the 50-150 is only $50 cheaper which one do I go with? Would the light weight of the 50-150 be the deciding factor? The only problem with that lens for me is that I feel like I would be wanting a little more focal range. BTW was that photo edited in any way? I really like it by the way. The look of the man is so… I want to say candid but I am not sure if that is the right word. IQ of the picture looks nice :D</p>

<p><strong>Carl Becker</strong>- I think AF is crucial. Right now I am trying to decide between the sigma 70-200 f2.8 macro and the sigma 50-150 f2.8. If I did upgrade my body I might wish I had the 80-200, but can’t imagine spend that much money in a short amount of time so I think I will scrap that idea : P</p>

<p><strong>John Narsuitus</strong>- Maybe I should get away from Amazon to buy a lens. The only thing is I am worried about the return policy. How are your experiences with ebay?</p>

<p><strong>C.P.M van het Kaar</strong>- I’ll look on the website. Amazon doesn’t carry the Nikon version for some odd reason.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the posts. I really think you all are guiding me in the right direction. All of your feedback is helpful and I appreciate the time you took to respond to my questions.</p>

<p> </p>