nikon telephoto. which one?? ARGHHH

[flosseR]

Ok so I just sold my 80-200mm lens which i was so fond of. Don't ask, long story for the "sale", involves me loosing a bet.
Anyway, I would like to get the same telephoto range again.

Now I am torn. Should I get a used 70-200mm for 1300 euros or a used AF-s 80-200mm for 1000? the 300 euros arent what i am worried about, its the fact that there is large light fall off with the 70-200, or so I read. Can anyone confirm this?
I want f2.8 and I would prefer nikon, though the new version is just WAY too expensive... Anyone has experience with the new sigma lens?

 

[compuwar]

Now I am torn. Should I get a used 70-200mm for 1300 euros or a used AF-s 80-200mm for 1000?

If you were happy with the EDIF 80-200, you'll be at least as happy with the AF-S version (I think it's a slightly different formula, so you should be happier.)

Paul

 

[flosseR]

If you were happy with the EDIF 80-200, you'll be at least as happy with the AF-S version (I think it's a slightly different formula, so you should be happier.)

Paul

Thanks compuwar. I think I will look at the AF-s version and have a look see.. I am not sure that VR is going to be the deciding factor, the 10 additional mm though might be...

 

[CK Williams]

Now I am torn. Should I get a used 70-200mm for 1300 euros or a used AF-s 80-200mm for 1000? the 300 euros arent what i am worried about, its the fact that there is large light fall off with the 70-200, or so I read. Can anyone confirm this?
I want f2.8 and I would prefer nikon, though the new version is just WAY too expensive... Anyone has experience with the new sigma lens?

I use the 70-200 VR I version on my D700 often and really like the results. It also pairs quite well with my 1.4TC. The VR helps me for odd/low light shots and I'll probably never buy another long lens without it. The VR II version is supposed to be incredible on FX, but the $$$ make it out of reach for me also right now. I haven't heard much about the Sigma yet, but their QC issues make me slightly hesitant about getting a non-macro lens from them.

 

[luminosity]

The 70-200 VR I vignettes on FX, and it has soft corners when it does cover the entire frame. The 70-200 VR II takes care of that and has corner to corner sharpness. It's also very sharp on your wallet.

I bypass all that by using my 180/2.8 instead of a zoom.

 

[Smarterchild]

My 70-200 vignettes on my d3 when I shoot at 2.8. I love the fallout and vignette of the photos. But I'd say the 70-200 would be better. The vr adds a lot. I bet you'd be able to adjust the vignette in post processing

 

[Smarterchild]

Mayi ask..what was the bet. Sounds like a good story

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Maybe a better question is: how often did I use that lens? If you used it a lot, then perhaps you can justify splurging for the costlier replacement. If you found yourself not using it as often, you could get the 70-300 VR and spend the rest on a new ballhead or filters.

 

[pdxflint]

Maybe a better question is: how often did I use that lens? If you used it a lot, then perhaps you can justify splurging for the costlier replacement. If you found yourself not using it as often, you could get the 70-300 VR and spend the rest on a new ballhead or filters.

...or replace it with another 80-200 AF-D. There are plenty of excellent/mint copies on the used market in the $700 range. I happen to like mine, and it didn't cost me an arm and a leg.