Nikon Telephoto In The 70-200mm Range?

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Well im looking for a fast telephoto lens, I really want to get a lens that will work when I do make the switch to full frame and something that will last. I also want to stay in the sub 1000 level.

Here are the lenses I was considering
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $711 on amazon
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $640 on amazon
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D that is $925 on amazon


What would you guys suggest?

[Cliff3]

A used 80-200 AF-S f2.8. I bought my copy of this lens used and have been using it for the past 4 years. It's an excellent lens and so far I have not been tempted to upgrade to the 70-200 VR. A very clean copy should go for $900 or thereabouts.

[ChrisA]

The only reason to buy the third party 70-200 is because you can't afford the Nikon. But even if that is the case, the Nikon sells for $650 on the used market.

One of the biggest differences between Nikon and the others is that Nikon lenses have very little unit to unit variation. Every one is identical. The others are such that you might get a very good one or one that is just so-so.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

ok so I should go with the 80-200mm then?

[Cliff3]

ok so I should go with the 80-200mm then?

Yes. The next question is which one. Which body do you have?

[rogersmj]

As long as you don't have a D40, D40x, or D60, I would go with the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D. As you've found, it's around $900 new, or good-condition used copies are in the $700-$800 range. Phenomenal lens; it's next on my shopping list.

EDIT: I just realized who we're talking to...Steve's got a D90 I believe ;) so that lens would be fine.

[H2Ockey]

Yes.

I fourth that. The 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D in everyway i've experienced lives up to it's reputation, which is stellar.

[88888888]

As long as you don't have a D40, D40x, or D60, I would go with the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D. As you've found, it's around $900 new, or good-condition used copies are in the $700-$800 range. Phenomenal lens; it's next on my shopping list.

EDIT: I just realized who we're talking to...Steve's got a D90 I believe ;) so that lens would be fine.

Is that lens bad on the d40, d40x, or d60? or something?

[jaseone]

Is that lens bad on the d40, d40x, or d60? or something?

It's a D so doesn't have the autofocus motor like the 50/1.8.

[Cliff3]

I fourth that. The 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D in everyway i've experienced lives up to it's reputation, which is stellar.

Well, actually I am in the minority here so you just thirded it. I am definitely on board with the notion of sticking with Nikkor lenses, but I favor the AF-S version of the 80-200 that was replaced by the 70-200 VR in 2003. It will have faster focus than the AF-D, especially on non-pro bodies, plus no auto/manual focus override switch to deal with. The AF-S lens has 5 ED elements to the 3 found in the AF-D lens, resulting in improved color saturation and CA control. It costs a bit more, but it's a bargain compared to the 70-200 VR and probably comes close to equaling that lens, minus the VR feature.

[rogersmj]

I've heard (I have no personal experience with this lens, so I'm just asking) that the AF-S version is more prone to flare than the AF-D. Have you noticed a susceptibility to that?

Has anyone extensively used both? Does the slightly faster AF time on lower-end bodies like the D90 make it worth it to go for the AF-S?

[Cliff3]

I've heard (I have no personal experience with this lens, so I'm just asking) that the AF-S version is more prone to flare than the AF-D. Have you noticed a susceptibility to that?

Has anyone extensively used both? Does the slightly faster AF time on lower-end bodies like the D90 make it worth it to go for the AF-S?

Flare is a problem with the majority of zoom lenses - their internal complexity leads to a propensity to flare. Rorslett's review (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS80-200f2.8) mentions it with this lens, but I always use a lens hood and have experienced no problems. I would use the word significant and not slight to describe the difference between AF-S and AF-D focus systems. I have a couple of AF-D lenses (85 f1.4, 60 f2.8 micro) and I don't use them for sports or similar situations.

The AF-S lens has two drawbacks. It's heavy, and the tripod collar is poor. I use a replacement collar from Kirk with my lens.

edit: Then there is the ability to use Nikon's teleconverters with this lens. I have the TC14E and it works beautifully with this lens, and gives added reach if needed without compromising autofocus or image quality. Here's a 3-legged car photo using the 80-200 AF-S plus TC14E shot wide open at f4:

http://www.coates3.com/modules/gallery2/d/16059-2/_DSC8755.jpg

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Yes. The next question is which one. Which body do you have?

Oh i have a D90

[H2Ockey]

Cliff3, I was having a very hard time in the back of my head with the AF-S version. Now I remember why I didn't buy it when I got the AF-D... I couldn't find one!, and I shopped for a month. I've seen 3 pop in on Ebay since I got the AF-D, granted I haven't been looking for them recently though.
I think that says enough about the lens quality. A replacement, the 70-200mm came out but you don't see the 80-200 AFS's flood the market. Like you i'm sure most are more than content.

From everything i've seen it as well lives up to the hype.

I have some, but limited experience with AFS lenses. From what I have seen they also live up to the hype. The difference in not only focusing speed but accuracy is impressive. I wish I could try some Sigma HSM lenses to compare to as I've heard some focal lengths they are faster but having never touched one myself I can't say. Anyone have input?

I can't say how much more AFS and VR are worth to ME in a lens, but I do know they work; and for my future purchases it will be worth saving-up the extra $$ for it.

[Cliff3]

I've seen a half dozen of these lenses on Ebay recently. Some of them were pretty beat up, but a couple seemed nice. Unlike camera bodies, lenses are a longer term commitment. If you're in the used market, it's worth spending some time to find a suitable one as you will likely keep it a good long time.

I'm kind of ambivalent about VR. I have never had an image stabilized lens, so I can't say from personal experience whether I am missing out on something great or not. AF-S (or the older AF-I) is definitely worth it if you're shooting action.

[H2Ockey]

Based on all the action shots, surfers and motorsports you've posted i'm not sure VR would do much either. Where I've noticed it is being able to gather a few more stops by slowing the shutter speed and not getting camera shake... Subject motion would then become a problem in action shots. For a quick hand held shot even down to 1/4sec for me (an admittedly shaky person) VR works as advertised.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

edit: Then there is the ability to use Nikon's teleconverters with this lens. I have the TC14E and it works beautifully with this lens, and gives added reach if needed without compromising autofocus or image quality. Here's a 3-legged car photo using the 80-200 AF-S plus TC14E shot wide open at f4:

http://www.coates3.com/modules/gallery2/d/16059-2/_DSC8755.jpg

Wow nice picture, I did that with a 67 mustang i used to have, except it was the rear passenger wheel off the ground, man that car handled terribly.

[FX120]

Wow nice picture, I did that with a 67 mustang i used to have, except it was the rear passenger wheel off the ground, man that car handled terribly.

A live axle will do that to you.

And I see your one wheel off the ground, and raise you two:

http://anodizedblue.net/photos/7-31/Picture-11.jpg


Anyway, I my vote goes for the AF-S 80-200, you'll have an easier time finding it, and the cost difference won't be all that great.

[Cliff3]

Wow nice picture, I did that with a 67 mustang i used to have, except it was the rear passenger wheel off the ground, man that car handled terribly.

This car handles pretty well, and the driver usually finishes in the top 5 or 6 cars in his class at the local BMW car club autocross. The front-drivers that show up for fun runs - VW's and Hondas - usually lift their rear wheels.

A live axle will do that to you.

Not on a BMW it won't. The owner of this car runs really stiff sway bars.

[chocolaterabbit]

It's a good thing there are many levels of the 70-200 zoom, (or 80-200) and each is slightly more expensive than the next, so you have to stop somewhere. On ebay 80-200AFS are slightly more than 1000, so i would suggest going for the D if you must stay below 1000, otherwise perhaps the 70-200 VR is the best choice after all, and you won't regret being cheap down the track. i have no experience with 3rd party zooms, but everyone says you get what you pay for, so personally, if you ask what i would do, i would skip everything else and go straight for the 70-200. (i just ordered one :D)

[Cliff3]

It's a good thing there are many levels of the 70-200 zoom, (or 80-200) and each is slightly more expensive than the next, so you have to stop somewhere. On ebay 80-200AFS are slightly more than 1000, so i would suggest going for the D if you must stay below 1000, otherwise perhaps the 70-200 VR is the best choice after all, and you won't regret being cheap down the track. i have no experience with 3rd party zooms, but everyone says you get what you pay for, so personally, if you ask what i would do, i would skip everything else and go straight for the 70-200. (i just ordered one :D)

There are 2 auctions for the 80-200 AF-S at the moment, both around $500. The one that is currently above $500 looks like a decent copy of this lens (link (http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-80-200mm-f-2-8D-ED-Lens_W0QQitemZ130288386612QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item130288386612&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50)). A review of completed auctions for this lens shows that 6 out of 10 sold for less than $1000 and the remaining 4 sold for $1000-$1100.

Now, as to the 70-200. Reviews of this lens reveal disappointing performance on FX sensors, and many expect a revised version of this lens from Nikon in the next year or two. The current price of the lens, sold new with a US warranty from B&H is $1900. That puts it way out of the price range specified by the OP.

[chocolaterabbit]

I have read of the performance issues of the 70-200, and while i do have a D700 and therefore should be concerned, i decided to order it anyway. The reason is 2 fold: 1 because i think the performance is enough (i don't use 12MP usually, personally it's overkill and i wished that the D700 had even less pixels) plus i'm convinced VR is more useful than what sharp corners, and 2 i think nikon has plenty of gaps in the lineup that they need to fill, such as fast primes, pro f4 zooms, and a revised 80-400mm, that i don't think they'll update it so soon, but that's just speculation. Plus a used 70-200 is around 1300, so not that much more than the 80-200 AFS.
Anyway, enough about the 70-200, if the OP can get a cheap copy of the AFS for less than 1000, then it's definitely a better deal. more than that, you need to evaluate whether VR is more useful for the extra cash, if you can spare it. But buy the best that you can afford, in order to not be disappointed later. That happened to me, as well as other people i've talked to, and we all agreed we regretted wasting the money.

[hogfaninga]

Nikon is more than likely going to update the 70-200 soon like another poster said. I have been hearing this year, but who knows. I bought one when prices were way down a couple of months ago, but it is a waste right now to buy it (prices are way, way up and new one is probably coming soon) in my opinion unless you have to do it for professional reasons. That said, it is a nice lens, but it doesn't have as great reviews on a FX body. VR is nice, but honestly you don't need it if you shoot sports or anything with fast action. Stationary things yes it will help, but even without it you can take super pictures. VR is nice, but not $700-1000 more nice nor is it a necessity at all.

I'm thinking about selling mine right now because prices on them are outrageous and I can get a lot for it now (more than I bought it for--so I had it for free and will make some money on it). I most likely will buy the new one when it comes out which will be better anyways. I need it because I shoot sports a lot.

The Sigma 70-200 is really nice. My friend has it along with the 1.4 Sigma TC (which extends the reach to 98-280) and it works really, really, well. It is fast and if you are a decent photographer will produce sharp images(this is the case with any lens--it is just easier to blame the lens so people do that most of the time). I was very impressed and it costs less than half of that of the Nikon. The Nikon isn't worth over twice as much. I borrowed his Sigma for a day and like I said it was pretty awesome. If you go to dpreview or any other dedicated photography site (all independent reviews give it a thumbs up) it has really good reviews.

[FX120]

Not on a BMW it won't. The owner of this car runs really stiff sway bars.

I was talking about the 67 Mustang.

[compuwar]

The Sigma 70-200 is really nice. My friend has it along with the 1.4 Sigma TC (which extends the reach to 98-280) and it works really, really, well. It is fast and if you are a decent photographer will produce sharp images(this is the case with any lens--it is just easier to blame the lens so people do that most of the time). I was very impressed and it costs less than half of that of the Nikon. The Nikon isn't worth over twice as much. I borrowed his Sigma for a day and like I said it was pretty awesome. If you go to dpreview or any other dedicated photography site (all independent reviews give it a thumbs up) it has really good reviews.

My impression of the DPR lens review of the Sigma was that the Sigma wasn't nearly as sharp as the Tamron or Nikon lenses. I admit I haven't chased down the MTFs though. In fact, if Tamron has fixed AF speed, or if the Tamron AF for Nikon is better than it is for Canon, it seems like the better lens overall if you're looking for a reason to not buy the Nikon.

[hogfaninga]

My impression of the DPR lens review of the Sigma was that the Sigma wasn't nearly as sharp as the Tamron or Nikon lenses. I admit I haven't chased down the MTFs though. In fact, if Tamron has fixed AF speed, or if the Tamron AF for Nikon is better than it is for Canon, it seems like the better lens overall if you're looking for a reason to not buy the Nikon.

On sharpness you are right about their tests, but the Tamron's AF was much slower. It was a wash and it depends on what the person's needs are. If you are shooting sports then AF is more important at least to me it is. The pic quality from the shots I took with the Sigma were great. I wanted it to perform noticably worse than my Nikon because I paid a lot more for my Nikon, but it wasn't a huge gap overall in my tests. Not at all.

All I know from my own real life tests is the Sigma is a heck of a deal and is a very nice lens overall. Its AF is very fast and pic quality is good.

As I said I own the Nikon 70-200 VR and while it is nicer than the Sigma it isn't $1000-1200 nicer. Nobody who is objective would say it is worth that much more. If they do they own the Nikon 70-200 and just want to claim that to feel it is to justify paying that much, they have never used the Sigma (honestly never used it), or they are a Nikon fanboy. I only own Nikon lenses (that is about to change on my next purchase), but I'm objective and fair(some tests I have done on various friends 3rd party lenses opened my eyes). There are a number of 3rd party lenses just as good or better than the Nikon equivalent. In this case the Nikon is better, it just isn't that much better for the price.

[Cliff3]

I was talking about the 67 Mustang.

Sorry about that - I figured it out after I posted it. I really shouldn't be posting online at 4am...

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

[cube]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

I think I would just go for a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and then get a Sigma 150-500 OS HSM.

[jaseone]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

It depends entirely upon the focal length you need and the conditions you will be shooting in, to me if someone is asking that kind of question then they don't really know what they need/want so I would suggest stepping back and really thinking about what you want out of your next lens before proceeding.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

[Cliff3]

Well im pretty sure im going to buy the 80-200, but I was wondering what you guys think of the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D? There is also the 70-300 but from the shots I looked at the 80-400 is WAY sharper at the edges.

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

Do you think the extra 200mm of range is a good tradeoff for the speed of the lens?

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

The 80-400 is getting long in the tooth and is ripe for replacement. It was Nikon's first VR lens, and it lacks AF-S. The lens is described by reviewers as slow to focus and clumsy to handle. Opinions of optical quality seem to vary among reviewers, which indicates sample variation and that variation exists is a concern.

If it were my money (and 4 years ago, it was) I would opt for the lens I suggested. It is a professional quality constant aperture zoom with first rate optics and as fast a focus speed as you'll find. You can extend the range with teleconverters. Nikon's TC14E (1.4x) and TC17E (1.7x) will work just fine with this lens, transforming it into a 112-280 f4 or 136-340 f4.8 lens, respectively. Nikon's TC20E (2.0x) doesn't work especially well with any lens, but it is an option too. The only real risk is buying used instead of new. Ask the seller lots of questions, one of which should be whether the lens is a US lens or gray market, since Nikon doesn't service gray market lenses.

[termina3]

VR is only worthwhile if your subject isn't moving... and I don't get an additional 2-3 stops as they advertise. Maybe closer to 1-2. I guess I'm just a relatively steady shooter though, so there's not as much to correct (and gain).

[jaseone]

No, I know what i need is something in the 80-200mm range but I was just wondering how the 80-400 compared, the extra 200mm would be nice but its not needed.

Im going to go for the 80-200, just throwing the idea of the 80-400 around.

Thanks guys

Well the reason you're paying the extra for the 80-200 is that it is a constant aperture zoom allowing you to have it wide open at 200 so to compare that to getting an extra 200mm out of the 80-400 doesn't make much sense to me. Kinda like square peg/round hole only one fits what you need.

The only real qualifier you have given is that it needs to be "fast" and the 80-200 qualifies in that department.

[chocolaterabbit]

i see that the used prices for the 70-200 is pretty crazy right now in US ebay, so i guess that rules it out. I didn't buy it from the US. As for a new revised 70-200 or 80-400, i wouldn't count on it, it could be a long time away. Use/buy what you have now, and don't wait for tomorrow's technology.

As for the sigma 70-200, you are correct that the nikon isn't twice as good, but as with all luxury items, there are diminishing gains when you approach the top end. the 70-200 is no different. you are paying a lot more for not much more, and only you can decide if the slightly faster AF, slightly better glass, build quality, and VR is worth the money for you. it's a personal choice, and one the OP could take. Don't get the 80-400 though, unless you think you need the extra zoom, and are willing to give up some performance.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Well I ordered the 80-200mm on amazon right after my last post, so hopefully I'll get it this week

[Cliff3]

Enjoy your lens. Since that is not the version I was talking about, forget everything I said about teleconverters. They won't work with the lens you purchased. If you want to use teleconverters, Kenko is probably your best bet.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Humm amazon called me to confirm that I was the one that ordered the lens, is that something that amazon normally does?

[rogersmj]

Interesting...in all the years I've been ordering from them, no they've never called me. But maybe they do it for certain high-dollar items...? Or perhaps your credit card company triggered a request for additional verification.

You ordered this (http://bit.ly/ke1ot) one I assume?

[Artful Dodger]

Humm amazon called me to confirm that I was the one that ordered the lens, is that something that amazon normally does?
Amazon has never done this with me and I've bought some high ticket items :confused: I would call Amazon CS and let them know what was said and hopefully you didn't give any CC info. Amazon would have that already so I've never heard of this, let us know the outcome and god luck.

[rogersmj]

Man you ordered at the right time, Steve...the price is up $100 over what it was just a few weeks ago (http://tr.im/ht1g). I'm looking to buy one of these in the next 6 weeks or so hopefully, but prices are going up across the board...it's tough to find a used one for less than $800. Argh.

[Hmac]

Nikon is more than likely going to update the 70-200 soon like another poster said. I have been hearing this year, but who knows. I bought one when prices were way down a couple of months ago, but it is a waste right now to buy it (prices are way, way up and new one is probably coming soon) in my opinion unless you have to do it for professional reasons. That said, it is a nice lens, but it doesn't have as great reviews on a FX body. VR is nice, but honestly you don't need it if you shoot sports or anything with fast action. Stationary things yes it will help, but even without it you can take super pictures. VR is nice, but not $700-1000 more nice nor is it a necessity at all.




I agree - the 70-200 VR was a fantastic lens on my D2H, is slightly less so on my D3. In reality, the corner vignetting is rarely a problem, but I do know that it's there, and am inclined to make the 70-200VR II my next lens purchase. Not because I need it, really, but because I want it.

As to VR, for most of the shooting I do, I have it turned off. I rarely use it.

[ChrisA]

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $711 on amazon
Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 that is $640 on amazon
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D that is $925 on amazon

What would you guys suggest?

Pay $650 for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D.

[ChrisA]

THe 80-400 is slower, but it has a lot more range, and it has VR that can make up a bit for the lens being slower.

No. VR can't make up for the lens being slower. VR only helps with camera shake, not subject motion or depth of field.

It is very hard to make good use of a 400mm lens. For one thing you need to have very still and clean air.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Man you ordered at the right time, Steve...the price is up $100 over what it was just a few weeks ago (http://tr.im/ht1g). I'm looking to buy one of these in the next 6 weeks or so hopefully, but prices are going up across the board...it's tough to find a used one for less than $800. Argh.

wow I guess I did order one at a good time, strange I never seen the price of a lens go up on amazon.

[compuwar]

Pay $650 for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D.

Sees counter-intuitive to pay more than you have to... :rolleyes:

(Got a used but pristine 80-200 for $500 a week ago.)

[rogersmj]

Sees counter-intuitive to pay more than you have to... :rolleyes:

(Got a used but pristine 80-200 for $500 a week ago.)

Is that for the modern double-ring version we're talking about, or the older push-pull one? I sometimes see push-pull 80-200s go for around $500, but never the double-ring unless something's wrong with it. The used EX and EX+ condition 80-200mm double-rings are around $800 on keh.com.

If it's the double-ring you got for $500, please tell me how you found that!

[compuwar]

Is that for the modern double-ring version we're talking about, or the older push-pull one?

It's push-pull- great lens at a fair price with caps and the nice leather Nikon case. I might have been able to get a two-ring for less than $650 if they'd had one in. I tend to get very good prices out of the Virginia-based dealer I got it from, so I don't feel the need to haggle- only one price I'm not allowed to say but it wasn't for a lens.

[dlegend]

anyone have the sigma 70-200? I'm looking at getting a f2.8 in the 70/80-200 range but can't decide. The price difference is so big and i haven't been able to try one out. I'm looking at it to take pictures of night sports games and indoor volleyball.

[dlegend]

does anyone have first hand experience with a nikon 70-200 and an off-brand? I just looked at the Nikon today and it was awesome, but that $1,800 price tag isn't going to fit my budget.

[SUPERSTEVE9219]

Just go for the 80-200, I really don't think the extra 10mm and VR is worth playing nearly double for.

I got this image with it, click it to see 1920x1200 version. I think I might have some others I took with this lens on my flickr.
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/1521507/img/Anonymous/wallpaper3.jpg