Which 70-200mm f2.8 is good for D7000?

[denny_lai1]

<p>I had been shooting with my d7000 for more than 2 years and I still love it and probably will stay with DX. I am an enthusiast and have interest in shoot everything and every occasions. I do pick up side gigs to make a few bucks. I current have the following lenses:<br>

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (for landscape and club)<br>

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 dc Macro Os Hsm ( for general and Macro, mostly flowers)<br>

Nikon 10.5mm f 2.8 ED AF DX Fisheye ( for fun shots)<br>

Nikon 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f.1.8 ( for protroit )<br>

Nikon 18-200mm VR I ( my very 1st lens and haven't been using it and probably will sell it )<br>

The reason I want to get 70-200mm f2.8 is for sporting event, and nature shots, I am planning to get a TC17eii later for even longer range.<br>

I am hoping to spend less than $1500 on the next lens either it's new or used. Here are my options:<br>

1. Nikon 70-200mm f 2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR.....new $1400-1500.....used $1100-1300<br>

2. Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 Di LD Macro New $770....I like the Macro function.<br>

3. Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 Di VC USD New $1300-1500<br>

4. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG OS HSM New $1000-1200<br>

5. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF New $1000-1100<br>

Is there really a significant different between the Tamron 70-200mm Di Ld Marco and the Nikon? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Denny</p>

<h1 > </h1>

<p> <br>

</p>

<h1 id="title" > </h1>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I haven't used the Nikon VR 70-200/2.8 on the D7000 as but on the D200 it displayed some softness at f/2.8, at the 200mm focal length, but was excellent stopped down to f/4. The images taken with the TC-14E II were not very good; I would avoid this combination. The newer VR 70-200/2.8 II is very good with the TC-14E II though. If you get this lens, I would not count on getting good results using a TC with it, rather combine it with the AF-S Nikkor 300/4, an excellent lens, when you need significantly greater than 200mm reach.</p>

<p>The older AF 80-200/2.8D AF N is a nice lens (and has better corner sharpness and less vignetting than the VR 70-200/2.8 on FX and 35mm film) but it is not as well corrected in the DX area as the VR 70-200/2.8 is, so if you get one of these two (options 1 and 5 in your list) I would take option 1 especially for use on a high-resolution DX camera. </p>

<p>I have not used options 2-4 on your list.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>I have the new Tamron on my DX and it's VERY good. I just didn't want to drop the extra $1k that Nikon was asking and honestly, I don't think I'm missing too much. The only thing I dont like too much is that the zoom ring is closer to the front of the lens whereas I'd prefer the zoom & focus ring reversed.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>All review state that number 2 (the older Tamron without VC) has slow autofocus action, but is otherwise optically excellent. So for sports, it may not be the best choice. Numbers 3 and 4 should be fine (I quickly tested an older version of 4 once, and it is fine; I just dislike how Sigma lenses zoom the wrong way around).<br>

I have number 5 on your list; being driven by the screwdriver in-body, its AF speed depends quite a lot on the body used. I'm not sure where the D7000 stacks up. On a D80, the AF speed was reasonable, on a D300 it was (in my view) perfectly acceptable for fast-moving subjects. Many copies have focus inaccuracies at 200mm at short distances (for events, that may come into play), otherwise it leaves little to complain given the price differences with the VR versions. So, try before you buy.</p>

<p>Personally, given your wish list, I'd try option 1 first, and forget about the TC17 (not worth the hassle for this combo).</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>I am very happy with my 70-200 VR version 1. Although I did not own the 80-200/2.8D at the same time, the 70-200 was better than the 80-200 AFS I replaced the AFD version with, so by inference the 70-200 I have is better than the 80-200D I had. </p>

<p>There likely is some sample variation with all of these lenses, so I would buy with return privilege and test whichever lens you decide on. The first 70-200 I tried was softer than the one I kept.</p>

<p>Though I can't prove it, I think the ratio of in focus sports action photos is higher with the AF-S lenses. And, if you need VR for a situation, it is nice to have.</p>

<p>Since I am not shooting as much low light sports, I got a 70-200/f4 AF-s recently. It is much more portable than the 2.8 versions, and generates great images.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have used the Nikon and Sigma versions on that list, but not the Tamrons.</p>

<p>If possible, I would stick with AF-S type lenses for better current compatibility. I don't think you can buy version 1 of the Nikon 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR new any more. It has been 5 years since Nikon introduced version 2 (2009); it is very unlikely that any new version 1 is still hiding somewhere in a store. That is still a very good lens, especially on DX.</p>

<p>I tested the Sigma in 2010: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/70-200/review/<br /> That is also a fine lens. However, it is not compatible with all Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters. The extra tab on those teleconverters will block you from mounting them on the Sigma zoom. There appears to be sufficient clearance so that if you choose to file off the tab on the TC, it may work, but I don't have any Nikon TC with the tab removed so that I never tried that.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, zooms do not work well with teleconverters. I would at most put a 1.4x TC onto those zooms (f2.8 becomes effective f4) and then stop down further to f5.6 to get better results.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I tried the Tamron #3 at their Tailgate event and it's very fast and has internal focusing. Unlike #2, which does not. But #2 is optically very good. If someone is offering you a brand new Nikon 70-200 at the prices you listed, I'd be wary since it's about $2300 retail. I've never heard too many things about the 80-200 Nikon, but as I'm looking around for myself, I'm also considering the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 which is about $989.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since the OP mentioned teleconverters, the Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 is an AF-D lens (and there was an earlier, AF version [pre AF-D] with push/pull zoom). Those AF and AF-D lenses are not compatible with Nikon TC-nnE teleconverters. Even though you file off the tab to mount them, there is still no AF.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I own the Tamron 70-200 non-VC version and use it regularly on my D7000 and D200. Excellent lens and tack sharp, great for weddings, portraits and events. Only thing I haven't been able to shoot with it is indoor sports -- the AF just isn't fast enough. For those assignments I rent the Nikon 70-200 VRII, which focuses like lightning on both bodies.<br /><br />Of the lenses you're looking at, it's an absolute no brainer in my mind: get the Nikon 70-200 VR. it was the top 70-200 in Nikon mount until the VRII came out. If you can swing it, get the VRII, even used. I've used the Tamron, the Nikon 80-200 and both the VR and VRII, and the VRII is definitely the all-around best. If you weren't doing sports I might be tempted by the Tamron, especially the new VC model, but you did say sports and sports, even outdoors, is very demanding.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The Tamron VC version is worth the extra IMHO. The VC is rock steady and the lens is fully useable wide open. Easily on a par with the Nikon I'd say. It's a completely recomputed design from Tamron's earlier version. See the DXO results to compare the Nikon and Tamron. Sigma really isn't even in the running IQ wise.</p>

<p>Shame that none of the current 70-200mm offerings from Nikon, Tamron or Sigma actually hold their focal length as they're focused close.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Personally, I'd get the 70-200/4 Nikkor I'm your situations.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for DX, the 70-200 VR I is the way to go. not just the optics and AF speed, but also the build.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>What Eric said.</p>

<p>I use the Version one 70-200 every day. I also own the 80-200 F/2.8D. For sports the former is the hot ticket on DX. I have not used the Tamron or the Sigma. </p>

[peter_perry]

<p>I have also been looking for similar information. I am leaning toward the Tamron VC 70-200 2.8, however, my understanding is that the Tamron VC will not work with any teleconverter. Can anyone confirm that?</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>This same topic has been discussed a number of times.</p>

<p>If you are into party, wedding photography, I would get the f2.8 version and VR is going to be very helpful. For sports, especially night and indoor sports, f2.8 is almost necessary.</p>

<p>If you are into landscape photography, hiking, etc., most likely you'll prefer the much lighter 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR.</p>

<p>Again, most zoom lenses don't take teleconverters well, but if you are planning to use a 1.4x TC, you are much better off starting from f2.8 so that you have more room to stop down the lens for better results, on top of the one stop you'll lose with a 1.4x TC.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I am planning to get a TC17eii later for even longer range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>at the price for this, i'd almost rather go with a dedicated, stabilized 70-300 if the plan is to use it on a 70-200. the tamron VC model is just $40 more. not the best lens for sports/events, and the zoom ring is stiff and awkward, but v. good optics and effective stabilization and more than sufficient for landscapes/nature/outdoor portraits in good light.</p>

[richsimmons]

<blockquote>

<p>I have also been looking for similar information. I am leaning toward the Tamron VC 70-200 2.8, however, my understanding is that the Tamron VC will not work with any teleconverter. Can anyone confirm that?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was told by a Tamron rep that you could, but you know it immediately becomes a f/5.6 lens if you use it..</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>Besides out of your budget indication, if you really want/need a F:2.8 zoom to work with the 1.7x converter you mentioned the best would be the VR II.<br>

The focus breathing was referred here but I guess that for both Nature and indoor sports you will not using it at close distance, where the "problem" shows. </p>

[denny_lai1]

<p>Thanks everyone for all the input, I went out to the store and tested #3, #4 and #5 on my list. I was impressed how fast and quiet the AF works, compare to #4 and #5. I think I can narrow my choices down to #1 or #3, I haven't had a chance to test #2 yet. I had also borrowed my friend's VR ii and shoot a few shots at the wildlife refuge, it was good but now I understand it's just not long enough for birds. Will keep my options open and do more research. Thanks again everyone.</p>