Given budget constraints, which 70-200?

[grear_howard]

<p>I currently have a Nikon D700 and an Nikon 80-200 2.8D lens. Being a bit old, the lens does not have image stabilization. Me - getting older- does not have much image stabilization either. I am a long time amateur, taking pictures at my work ( I am in education), family, friends and their kids as well as for fun.<br>

My question regards which 70-200 should I set my sights on with the D700. I plan on keeping that camera for a while. I feel it does what I need for my photography needs. Budget will not allow for the best and the newest, but I do want to hear what people are saying about Nikon's 70-200 VRI; Tamron's 70-200, and what ever else is out there. Or is it worth just to save like crazy and get the VRII?<br>

I value this forum's opinion and look forward to the discussion.<br>

Thanks-<br>

Grear Howard</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Do you need f/2.8?<br>

If not - then the Nikon 70-200/4 VR is a good option. Given up one stop also means given up about 1 pound of weight to haul around. 2 1/2 years ago, I traded the 80-200/2.8D for the 70-200/2.8 VR; and earlier this month, I traded said f/2.8 for the f/4 version - I simply wanted a 70-200 zoom that doesn't require special handling - I can carry a camera with the f/4 version attached in one hand, whereas the f/2.8 always either required two or something like the Black Rapid Strap to handle it weight. <br>

The one issue the 70-200/2.8 VR has is its softness in the corner at the long end when used on an FX camera; other than that, the lens is fine. <br>

The significant amount of focus breathing exhibited by the newer VR II version has been discussed enough - it's an issue for some, and not one for others. In essence, when focusing closer the FOV widens - to the extend that at MFD and the 200mm setting, the FOV is more like that of a 135mm lens. </p>

<p>I have not used any of the Sigma or Tamron 70-200 versions, so I can't comment on those.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Avoid the VR1 f2.8 unit. It was designed in the days of film and DX digital, so they traded away a bit of corner performance. The VRII 2.8 is king, and the VR f4.0 is also excellent, albeit with one less stop of brightness. There are many who like the third-party lens offerings, as well.</p>

[grear_howard]

<p>Thanks for those responses. I really think the 2.8 would be the preferred lens for my applications.<br>

I appreciate the word from Dan about the VR1.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>are you sure? saving a full pound of weight will have more of an impact than stabilization on your physical health in the long term. i have the 70-200 VRII and it's not a lot of fun to lug around for extended periods of time (although a black rapid-type strap is way better than a neck strap). if i was in your situation, i would seriously consider the 70-200/4. also, if you aren't shooting sports and need super-fast AF, the tamron version is optically as good as the nikon.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I got on very badly with more than one variant of the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D - at least one was an unwell lens, but the other just suffered from the telecentricity variations - I really couldn't get it to focus very well. There was a clear difference between that and the 70-200 VR 2 in sharpness when I tried it on a D700, and the difference grew when I got a D800. I exchanged it and just got the VR2, with which I have few complaints. I would never go near the VR1 on an FX camera, although I recommend it thoroughly to people shooting DX (same as the pre-Art Sigma 50mm f/1.4...), just for the corner issue mentioned above. There's a good example in <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/6">dpreview's</a> coverage of the lens. Of course, if you never care about the corners being sharp at 200mm (and I do mean <i>never</i> - it doesn't fix on stopping down), it may be an option for you.<br />

<br />

I've heard generally good things about both the Sigma and the latest Tamron equivalent lenses. They might be a little slower for following fast action than the Nikon - I think I've heard that, but I have no personal experience - but they're certainly competitive on sharpness.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and if you're as out of pocket after buying the Nikkor as I was, my sympathies!</p>

[elliot1]

<p>If you are going to be shooting in low light often enough, save like crazy and get the Nikon VRII.... it is worth the additional cost. Otherwise, the Nikon f4 version is probably the way to go.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The OP wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am a long time amateur, taking pictures at my work ( I am in education), family, friends and their kids as well as for fun.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main drawback for the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR, version 1, is performance into the corners at 200mm as Dieter and Dan pointed out earlier. Unfortunately, stopping down to even f8 cannot improve the problem. That topic was very thoroughly discussed on this 2008 thread <a dir="ltr" href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl&sa=U&ei=G6gxVa3GHtCrogTF2oDACw&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGv8erI2YAU80SS_05el-pjXpMXtg" target="_top" data-ctorig="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl" data-cturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl&sa=U&ei=G6gxVa3GHtCrogTF2oDACw&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGv8erI2YAU80SS_05el-pjXpMXtg">Consensus on 70-200 with FX</a><br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</p>

<p>Corner performance can be a major issue for landscape photography or copy work. For people photography, to me it is completely a non issue.</p>

<p>I wonder why the OP insists to get an f2.8. The f4 is indeed a lot lighter, but if the OP must get f2.8, either version 1 or 2 is fine for people photography. I had the opportunity to review the Sigma version for photo.net, and that is a good lens as well at a price cheaper than Nikon version 2.</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon f4 version review: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review</li>

<li>Sigma: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/70-200/review/</li>

</ul>

<p>IMO, you can pretty much base your decision on price and weight. I have never used the Tamron. Otherwise, you can't go wrong with any one of those lenses we have discussed on this thread.</p>

[grear_howard]

<p>Very grateful for all the helpful responses. I will rent the f4 and see how it responds to some grand- kid ballet and basketball photo ops. I may give the third parties a chance as rentals as well. <br>

I am glad to hear I am not the only guy who struggles with focusing the 80-200. <br>

I guess I will need to talk to my banker as well.<br>

Thanks again-<br>

Grear</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>When I needed to replace my 80-200 AFS because the focus motor died I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. One of the folks who shoots for me at horse shows had bought one and I had been very impressed with the image quality.<br>

I bought one and tested it against two different Nikon 70-200 VR2 that I have access to. The Sigma holds up very well against the Nikons. Wide open the Sigma is 95% as sharp shooting a resolution chart. Stop them down to f/3.5 and you can't tell the difference between the two. Out in the field where it really counts I find not difference between them. And I saved $1000 US by purchasing the Sigma</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is nice. I can't detect any difference in focusing speed between Sigmas HSM and Nikons AF-S. Both have ultrasonic motors in them.</p>

<p>Also there is a lot of instances where edge sharpness on the 70-200 VR I doesn't matter. For instance sports and portraits. Landscapes, architecture are different though. Simplified you could say that in scenarios where you shoot at f2.8 edge sharpness doesn't matter.</p>

<p>For ballet and basketball f2.8 is what you need, not f4.</p>

 

[howard_m]

<p>Here's a vote for the new Tamron. I really like mine.</p>

<p>Consider renting one or the other for a week and see what works/feels best.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would recommend the VR 70-200/4G Nikkor, it is about as good optically as its f/2.8 sibling and costs much less, plus has very nice handling, portability and ergonomics.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Shun you wrote</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder why the OP insists to get an f2.8. The f4 is indeed a lot lighter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot write to why the OP insists on a f/2.8, but I took a pass on purchasing the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 when it was on sale at a very attractive price, based on your review and your posts:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00byWh<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bLqY<br>

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0t4</p>

<p>where you state that the f/4 has problems focusing indoors and at low light. You were quite insistent about this, implying that the only place it was any good was outdoors in bright light.</p>

<p>Then you post beautiful, in focus, pictures of an indoor concert taken with the f/4. I guess it works indoors. From now on, I shall be taking your reviews with a grain of salt - a large grain of salt.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00byWh" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00byWh</a><br /> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bLqY" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bLqY</a><br /> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00c0t4" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0t4</a><br>

where you state that the f/4 has problems focusing indoors and at low light. You were quite insistent about this, implying that the only place it was any good was outdoors in bright light.<br>

Then you post beautiful, in focus, pictures of an indoor concert taken with the f/4. I guess it works indoors. From now on, I shall be taking your reviews with a grain of salt - a large grain of salt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooks, let's review what I wrote on those three threads, all from 2013, concerning AF between f2.8 vs f4:</p>

<ul>

<li>"Does he often shoot indoors or under night-time low light, e.g., weddings, parties, indoor sports .... If so, f2.8 will give you considerably better AF, regardless of whether you actually capture at f2.8." <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00byWh" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00byWh</a></li>

<li>"On the other hand, do you need to shoot at night or indoors? Under dim light, f2.8 will still give you faster and more accurate AF, regardless of whether you actually shoot at f2.8." http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bLqY</li>

<li>"However, f2.8 is going to make a big difference indoors and at night. Nikon's AF speed and accuracy will perform much better with an f2.8 lens than an f4 lens." http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00c0t4</li>

</ul>

<p>I stand by everything I wrote back then, and I will give exactly the same recommendation today.</p>

<p>Since I previous post, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3951594">Grear Howard</a> the OP has further commented:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will rent the f4 and see how it responds to some grand- kid ballet and basketball photo ops.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Because we are now talking about indoor action/dance and sports, maybe he will indeed be better off with a 70-200mm/f2.8. However, Nikon's version 1 should still be fine.</p>

<p>Finally, I am glad that Brooks describes my pictures are: "beautiful, in focus, pictures of an indoor concert taken with the f/4"<br>

As far as I can recall, I have only posted indoor concert images captured with the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR in two occasions on Nikon Wednesday, both in March this year (last month):</p>

<ul>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dA43</li>

<li>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dCRk</li>

</ul>

<p>From a photography point of view, the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is totally the wrong lens for those occasions. It is both slow and short. I had to crop quite a bit. If the symphony ever hired me as the official photographer (no chance at all), I would use something like a 400mm/f2.8 on a big tripod and 70-200mm/f2.8. Unfortunately, I was only a regular concert goer where photography is not quite allowed. That is why my choice for lens was a small telephoto so that it is not too conspicuous. Normally I always use a lens hood; in those occasions the hood was off so that the lens looks smaller. Since people aren't exactly running around on stage, AF on the f4 managed to deliver some good results. And all you get to see are a few small JPEGs that look good, as I don't have the habit to post those out-of-focus, motion blurred ones.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if, for example, you are a wedding photographer who are paid to deliver images from the first kiss, the first dance (action), etc. and there is a chance that you need to make 8x10 prints from there, I would definitely prefer an f2.8 version of the 70-200 for reasons I gave on the three threads from 2013.</p>

<p>Just keep in mind that we are merely talking about f2.8 will give you an AF advantage as well as an exposure advantage. Nobody says every image from the f4 lens will always be out of focus or every image from the f2.8 will be right in focus.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>And I stand by what I wrote - I do think your concert shots are beautiful and they definitely are in sharp focus.</p>

<p>But... (there is always a "but" isn't there <grin>) when you write:</p>

<p>"Does he often shoot indoors or under night-time low light, e.g., weddings, parties, indoor sports .... If so, f2.8 will give you<strong> considerably</strong> better AF" [emphasis added]</p>

<p>On the other hand, do you need to shoot at night or indoors? Under dim light, f2.8 will still give you<strong> faster and more accurate AF</strong>," [emphasis added]</p>

<p>"However, f2.8 is going to make <strong>a big difference indoors and at night</strong>. Nikon's AF speed and accuracy <strong>will perform much better with an f2.8 lens</strong> than an f4" [emphasis added]<br /> a reasonable man, and I am a reasonable man, would infer that there is an AF problem with the f/4 lens in doors and at night. Now you write:</p>

<p>"On the other hand, if, for example, you are a wedding photographer who are paid to deliver images from the first kiss, the first dance (action), etc. and there is a chance that you need to make 8x10 prints from there, I would definitely prefer an f2.8 version of the 70-200 for reasons I gave on the three threads from 2013."</p>

<p>That is much different than your 2013 posts, at least to my eyes.</p>

<p>For you, the good news is people (me as an example) do read what you write and did take it to heart; it influenced my decision not to purchase the 70-200 f/4 when it was on sale. Oh, well, I'll keep saving and buy the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8; it might even drop in price.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Brooks, f2.8 lenses can focus better than f4 lenses because the AF sensors are hit with light from more oblique angles. It's just physics, not a question of lens quality.</p>

<p>I believe all sophisticated cameras also have some of the cross-type sensors optimized for f2.8 lenses - Nikon doesn't go into such details about their AF but Canon does. This is also the reason why f5.6 and f8 is the lower limit for autofocus operation on most AF sensors. If the aperture is smaller than that, then the AF sensors can't detect the difference between in focus and out of focus anymore because the light rays hitting the sensors are almost parallel.</p>

<p>I think a good analogy is if you ever used a camera with a split image focusing screen. It's a lot easier to see and dial in the the focus on a wide aperture lens than it is on a smaller aperture lens. It's the same for the autofocus sensors.</p>

<p>Also as the light levels becomes lower the AF sensors will see more and more noise. It's because the AF sensors are actually one dimensional image sensors with auto iso (auto gain). So as the light gets lower it becomes harder and harder for the sensors to detect if something is in or out of focus. What this means in practice as the advantage the f2.8 lens has over an f4 lens becomes bigger as the light levels go lower and lower. And again this is just physics, doesn't have anything to do with the lenses really.</p>

<p>The speed of the AF movement is a question of how the lens elements need to move, what type of motor is used and how it is programmed inside the lens. Some lenses like for instance Nikon's 50/1.4G is slow even though there is very little mass to move but that's they way Nikon programmed it. It is probably optimized for accuracy, price and light weight over speed. Lenses like the 70-200 f2.8 is likely optimized for speed and reasonable accuracy. I haven't tested but I've seen several reviewers state that the 70-200 f4 lens is slightly slower than the f2.8. This is likely so by design. The 70-200 f4 is made to be lighter and cheaper and it would be illogical for Nikon to make the f4 more expensive than needed. Almost as fast AF as the 70-200 f2.8 is good enough.</p>

<p>For those that needs a lens that can work in most diverse scenarios, a stabilized 70-200 f2.8 is what they have.<br /> Those that only shoot sports or moving subjects don't need stabilization because they have to use high shutter speeds to freeze the motion of the subject. If they shoot in low light they however need f2.8 lenses because otherwise it would be very hard to maintain a high shutter speed even if they increase the ISO a lot.</p>

<p>The f4 lens is an option for those that don't need f2.8 for autofocus reasons, exposure reasons or creative reasons (isolate subject against background).</p>

<p>That would likely be non-pros or people like landscape photographers, studio photographers or others who know for sure they can get the job done with the f4 lens.</p>

<p>Sometimes it's also a question of what specific lens we are talking about. For instance a lot of wedding shooters use the 24-120 f4 lens for certain parts of the day when they know they will have enough light (or shoot flash) but want the advantage of the larger zoom range compared to the usual 24-70 f2.8. The 70-200 f4 doesn't have that advantage over the f2.8 but it is lighter, smaller and cheaper.</p>

<p> </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Hi Pete,</p>

<p>I accept your assertion that <em>theoretically</em> the f/2.8 lens can focus better than the f/4 lens. You, at least, state that your opinion is theoretical, and do not claim or imply that you, yourself, have verified that there is a practical effect.</p>

<p>Shun, on the other hand, wrote a review of the lens where he stated, as fact, that the f/4 did not focus as well as the f/2.8 (unfortunately the link to the review give me nothing but ads and a blank where the review should be, so I cannot quote the exact wording of the review.)</p>

<p>In his posts he states, as fact, that the f/2.8 will focus better than the f/4 using phrases such as: "f2.8 will give you considerably better AF"; "However, f2.8 is going to make a big difference indoors and at night"; and "Under dim light, f2.8 will still give you faster and more accurate AF". Using the phrases "will give" and "is going to make" imply that the poster or reviewer has himself achieved these results or at least has read reputable reports, which should be cited in a review, where these results were achieved. The phrases "should give" or "should make" would imply the writer has not himself achieved the results and they are theoretical assertions rather than fact. </p>

<p>When Shun finally did use the lens indoors and under low light conditions, the results did not confirm his assertions in the review or previous posts. Quite to the contrary, he achieved excellent results with the lens indoors. He reported his real life test in this post <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dDe3">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dDe3</a> long after his review. </p>

<p>And that is the point of my post - assertions or conclusions were reported in a review as fact when the reviewer had not yet performed the experiment. When the experiment was performed, the results contradicted the predicted results.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>It is true that the 70-200 f/2.8 II focuses more surely in low light, and the f/4 version can jitter a bit at times. I don't normally use the 70-200/4 indoors because I prefer f/2.8, f/2 and f/1.4 zooms and primes for those conditions, but I do use the 70-200/4 in the studio when I need the framing flexibility for tighter shots and my lights and the space I have sometimes get in the way of working with a prime. I prefer the 70-200 f/4 for studio use instead of the f/2.8 because the f/4 focuses closer, and achieves a higher magnification of 1:4 which can be useful e.g. for head shots of children, or other close-ups. It is also less tiring to use in a long session and less intimidating to the subject than the f/2.8 version. The drawback is that sometimes especially when using my older cameras the focus can jitter a bit. One solution to this may be using a mains powered key light with greater modeling light power, or a newer camera such as the D750 (which has a newer version of the AF module that can work in lower light). Even though it is possible to use the f/4 indoors doesn't really change the fact that faster lenses are more suitable for indoor work, will focus with less hesitation and offer options to use lower ISO or faster shutter speed by opening up the aperture.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The reports of the results of experiments can of course also be under stated, or exagerated.<br>The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is tiny. There is nothing "professional" about f/2.8 lenses, nothing "unprofessional" about f/4 lenses.<br><br>I was playing around with an old D70s, a slow zoom (4 - 5.6 35-80 mm) and a 64x neutral filter last night, and lo and behold, even that thing with that lens and filter will focus quite well in a badly lit room (and focus assist light off, of course. Stupid thing that should never have been put on cameras).

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>When Shun finally did use the lens indoors and under low light conditions, the results did not confirm his assertions in the review or previous posts. Quite to the contrary, he achieved excellent results with the lens indoors. He reported his real life test in this post <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dDe3" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dDe3</a> long after his review.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brooks, there is absolutely no inconsistency between my review of the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, the comments I made about its AF compared to the f2.8 version on various forum posts, as well as the images I posted to Nikon Wednesday. I never said things like "every image captured by the f4 version indoors is going to be out of focus because its AF is useless."</p>

<p>The problem is that you are judging sharpness based on a few <strong>small, <strong>selected</strong></strong> JPEG posted to Nikon Wednesday, or for that matter just about any web page such as Facebook, Flickr, Instagram .... photo.net limits posted images to 700 pixels, which is useless for judging sharpness, high-ISO noise, etc. You can hide a lot of problems with small JPEGs. That is why we post pixel-level crops to show those aspects. For example, when <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2199211">Barry Clemmons</a> recently discussed: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dCJy">D7100 vs D7200 at ISO 6400</a>, he posted various 100% crops, so did I in my follow ups.</p>

<p>The second key word is selected. I might have captured 100 images and maybe 90 of them are out of focus. Percentagewise that is very poor, but if I only show you 3 or 4 of the best ones, I can leave the impression that it is great. That is why we don't judge the effect of AF and VR with just a few images; instead, we capture many images and check the percentage of good ones to make a judgment. Sometimes we have people on these forums telling us that they can manual focus shooting sports better than using AF, and they promptly show us one image focused manually. What they don't show is perhaps hundreds of other ones that are totally out of focus. I find such posts highly misleading.</p>

<p>In closing, I am going to post another image of the violinist Ye-Eun Choi; I captured this image moments before the one I posted to Nikon Wednesday: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dA4f-555357884.jpg<br>

As a small JPEG on the left, this image may look sharp, but if you check the pixel-level crop, it is anything but sharp. Focus was off, and I used too slow a shutter speed as her upper body was definitely moving as she was playing the violin. Another issue to keep in mind is that it was in the San Francisco Symphony's Davies Hall, and there were bright spotlights pointing at the soloist. In comparison, the drums behind her are poorly lit; if I wanted to AF on those drums in that same image, it would have been much harder. When the venue is some very dim church, poorly lit high school gym ..., even the 70-200mm/f2.8 is going to struggle with AF.</p>

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00d/00dFFX-556373784.jpg">

</CENTER>

</P>

<P>

Some of the blurred details that I normally wouldn't share with everybody. Click on the link below to see the larger version with 100% crop on the right.

</P><div></div>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>OK, back to the OP's mission. I enjoyed taking photos of my son's high school basketball career, and posted here a number of times about the challenges. I used a D700 for a while.<br /> In many gyms including our home venue, I did not have enough light at any viable ISO to use the 80-200/2.8D, AFS, or 70-200VR1 lenses I had at various times, or the VRII that I had access to any time. The 85/1.8G used at the baseline was the way to go, for sure. On the D700, my keepers improved when I replaced the 85/1.8D with the G version. The OP might want to consider this option, since VR does not help freeze action. For variety, I used 50AF and 28/f2 MF lenses, as well. In the newer gyms with good lighting, AF-S zooms worked well.</p>

<p>For low light sports at 12MP, I could not tell much central image difference between the zoom VR1&2 versions, but I selected my very good VR1 from the best of 3 samples. I did not mind the VR1 corner light fall off/softness for the photos I took. I have seen some sample variation with the VR2 also, as well so test duing a trial phase if you get one.</p>

<p>After basketball was over, I evaluated my lens setup. Except for event photography, I never used my 70-200VR due to size and weight, no fun to carry. I replaced it with the 70-200/4VR that I really enjoy carrying and using. I still have the 85/1.8G and a 180/2.8D for low light and bokeh. I do think that the 180 has a really nice rendition, better than the VR1 zoom. The 70-200/f4VR is very good, as well. The AF on my 70-200/F4VR seems very precise with no AF tune on multiple bodies.</p>

<p>Other thoughts for the OP. Do you shoot raw? The DXO and NX2 raw converters do help improve low light performance of the D700, I think. I am currently using a D810. This might draw some criticism here, but I think that the D810 is enough overall better in low/bad light vs D700 that a D810 (or D750) with the lens you have might make a bigger improvement than a VRII lens would be.</p>

<p>Not sure about ballet, but spotlights might make it easier to shoot than basketball in a gloomy gym. I can't comment on Sigma or Tamron 2.8's, but if going that route, I would check AF accuracy carefully, or be sure it could be tweaked with AF fine tune.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>earlier, i recommended the 70-200/4 based on size/weight. that was before the OP indicated he was shooting indoor events (ballet/basketball), which changes things. obviously, an extra stop of aperture is useful in those specific conditions, and event shooting also means you need a fast shutter speed to stop motion blur. but given that the OP already has an 80-200, i'm not quite sure that a stabilized lens will make a difference when the shutter is 1/200 or higher, as is typical for shooting action. if you are shooting at 1/60 or 1/30 with a 200mm lens, then yes you absolutely need stabilization. but for sports and dance, ideal shutter speed to freeze motion is going to be on the high side, 1/320 or 1/500 if you can swing it. that might be asking a lot of any amateur setup. the d700 is a good low-light camera but it will struggle above ISO 3200.</p>

<p>so we have kind of a mixed bag of recommendations here, since the 70-200/4 only makes sense if the OP is trying to shave weight, but the 70-200/4 is not ideal for indoor action in low light. of the stabilized 70-200 zooms, only the tamron offers weight reduction due to the plastic build, but the AF speed is reportedly too slow for fast action. the Sigma might be a good option as its HSM motor is as effective as AF-S, but ive never used that lens so cant comment on sharpness. the 80-200 doesnt have AF-S, so that might explain some of the focus issues. but that is still a pro-quality lens. not sure if the 70-200 VRI makes sense on an FX body, and the 70-200 VRII is super pricey and doesnt offer significant weight reduction. So, i would maybe think about using the 80-200 with a monopod if you are going to mainly be in one location and not moving around a lot; that would at least help distribute the weight of the lens. i would also consider a fast telephoto prime like an 85 1.8 or 1.4 for times when 2.8 isn't fast enough.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Eric, I didn't see the OP mentioning anything at all about weight reduction, only budgetary concerns.</p>

[ShunCheung]

Perhaps it was me who incorrectly brought weight into the discussion. As the OP mentioned getting older, I

automatically associate weight with it. That is my fault.