70-200mm lens comparison between brands that fit nikon mount

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

70-200mm lens comparison between brands that fit nikon mount

(32 posts) (16 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Hi,

Need help as I'm looking for a 70-200mm lens 2.8 which is for indoor sports like volleyball and basketball but also be able to take low light shots ie weddings.
I've done research on the net and here is the gist of what they say.
Tamron 70-200mm - slow AF but good optics
Sigma 70-200mm version 2 - fast AF but as good optics and from the reviews I've read there's problems with front focussing which I need someone to explain, hopefully these were earlier reviews and have been fixed now.
Nikon 70-200mm VRII - the best lens but expensive (3 times the amount on the above 2)
New Sigma 70-200mm OS - I've only seen 1 review and they found it good and its almost double the price of previous version.

Just need opinion based on your experience and what you have read on these lenses. I still consider myself a novice although I've shot a few events but need a faster lens to get the better shots. I prefer not to spend big if I can get away with getting greater shots on the third party lenses. Any opinions/experience will be appreciated.

Thanks

Posted 2 years ago #
Hpoto

new member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1
offline

If you can afford the Nikkor, then go for it you will not be disappointed.If you are not sure ... rent one and use it on the subjects you list.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tecant

new member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 2
offline

There are a couple of other options if you can't afford the new 70-200 VRII.

Nikon 70-200 VR-I old version (Adorama $1700 refurbished by Nikon, $450 less than the new VR-II version). Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D new (Adorama $1100, lacks VR, won't autofocus on some consumer bodies like D40/D60/D5000)

For sports, I think the fastest and most accurate AF would be with the Nikkor 70-200 VR-I or VR-II on a Nikon body. 3rd party lens makers might be able to deliver very good IQ but must reverse engineer an AF system to work on a Nikon body. You can be sure Nikon does not share its trade secrets with Sigma or Tamron. Long-term reliability and re-sale value would also favor the Nikon zooms.

Posted 2 years ago #
Abhinav

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 202
offline

if you can afford get NIkon .I can understand what you're going through with price comparision .for the same reason I to have to look out for tammy or sigma because nikon is just too expensive for me :(

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I agree with "Tecant" - I have the 70-200 VR-I and it is great. I have no need to upgrade nor do I see the need too. If you do e-bay they are going for about $1400 last time I checked. I tried an old Tokina and optics were great but it was way too slow focusing on my D300.

Front focus = the focus point is in front of where you want it to be. Example you focus on the eyes and the focus is actually on the tip of the nose. Large deal with macro and lenses with an aperture that is larger than f2.o but for a 2.8 and if you are at least 6-10ft away the plane of focus you will not be able to tell. (maybe some very trained eyes can but it would be difficult.) With a D300 and up you can set the focus on a particular lens to help.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

what camera are you putting it on?

VRII has well, VR II and dreamy bokeh. probably as good as I have seen. it is also full frame and works pretty well with the tc-20eIII.

never regret buying mine. it's a gem.

Posted 2 years ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

The speed at which the Nikon VR11 focuses is amazing, a lot of money yes, but you wont be disappointed with the results . Is is fantastic for portraits

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Nikon VR lenses in this range are well worth it if you can afford them. On a budget, for what you plan to shoot, if you are on DX, I would also suggest you look at the sigma 50-150 F2.8 as well.

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

I wouldn't even both with anything but the Nikon version - the third party brands run into issues (AF, etc.) when you ironically need them the most. IMO.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Try the n70-200 vr from either ebay or craigs, as ppl selling them and buying new versions, or get a new one from bh or adorama. If you want to go cheaper, than get n80-200 or the new sigma - it's quite good optically and has a fast af, don't bother with the od sigma - piece of garbage IMHO (had this lens and sold it - it was too inconsistent). Tamron has great iq but lacks speed, even 80-200 is faster.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

I got my VRI 70-200 from ebay. As a few others have said, I'd stick with a nikkor rather than go 3rd party. You will not be disappointed as this is an amazing lens and I'm sure the VRII is as well although I've not used that one.

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Thanks for all your opinions much appreciated. I have a D90 and I also prefer not to buy from ebay so I would prefer new.

I'm from Australia and the stores I've looked at don't stock nikon vrI. I would love to buy the VRII but money is the issue and can't justify the expense as again I'm still a novice and still learning. Anyone share their experience with the third party lenses (70-200mm) they had above, so far I've had one person say old sigma was no good is that version II or I. Can people be more specific with experiences or people they know.

Thanks again for your responses

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

I own the tamron 70-200 2.8 and the only complaints I have is the autofocus speed and the lack of VR, but the optics are excellent. I don't have experience with either of the new Nikkors, but the 80-200 2.8D that I tried was softer than the tamron wide open, but about the same at f/4 and smaller apertures. Focus was much faster with the Nikkor but minimum focus distance is something like 3m(!) if I recall correctly.

I will say that the lens is considerably softer at 200mm and 2.8 than it is at most other settings. Here are some shots from the past couple of years of using it (they're full size, so they're kind of big files):
f/2.8 and 100mm
f/4 and 100mm
f/2.8 and 70mm
f/4 and 110mm
f/2.8 and 70mm
f/4 and 70mm
f/5 and 200mm
f/8 and 200mm

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Great photos Jonny...appreciate your comments.

I'm worried about the autofocus speed for indoor sports and then at weddings/other events in low light without VR and even at 2.8 not sure if the shutter speeds is going be fast enough to get crisp clean shots without blurring or being too dark. I know I can bump the ISO and with the D90 the pics aren't too bad even at 1600. So yeah you confirmed that the Tamron while getting great shots isn't going to be fast enough and lack with lack of vr might not produce the best results.

Anyone had any experience with Sigma's particularly the HSM II or the new OS which like the Nikon VR II is suppose to provide 4 stops better...does that mean with Aperture of 2.8, with same ISO and lighting conditions instead of shutter let's say of 1/4 s without VR, with VR will the shutter speed be 1/60th s, please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks
John

Posted 2 years ago #
SparkCreative

new member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 3
offline

Nikon every time.

You could always try leasing it - small monthly payments and then you own it at the end.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

JohnSebs said:
the Nikon VR II is suppose to provide 4 stops better...does that mean with Aperture of 2.8, with same ISO and lighting conditions instead of shutter let's say of 1/4 s without VR, with VR will the shutter speed be 1/60th s, please correct me if I am wrong.

while i am not sure what the ss stops are exactly as they don't match the increments i can adjust by i would say more or less ignore what nikon says about four stops. although four increments down from 1/60 is 1/25 on my d700 and this may be about right for the vr II.

i can tell you now, i shoot mainly under flourescent at work (a preschool atm) and i shoot everything at 2.8 1/125. why, because the lights are 60hz (1/125 is half a cycle). i can't go faster than this as the lights wont allow it, I can't go slower than this as the kids wont stop moving. 2.8 is great if i'm at 100-200mm and i just want 1 kid in focus. but if i want two, usually i need to go to f4 or above. this is often dark on FF 1600iso. i shoot 14 bit raw exclusively and it's usually fine though (after lightroom adjust).

the closest i can focus the VRII is 1.4m this is annoying. the vr seems to be a waste of time. if you are doing portraits it may be OK as your subjects will be still, but then you will probably use a flash.

the vrII is sharp corner to corner on FF at 2.8 from 70-200mm. i doubt the other lenses can make this claim. as an investment get this lens. you will more than likely get a ff camera in the future and you wont need to upgrade your lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

JohnSebs said:
...the new OS which like the Nikon VR II is suppose to provide 4 stops better...does that mean with Aperture of 2.8, with same ISO and lighting conditions instead of shutter let's say of 1/4 s without VR, with VR will the shutter speed be 1/60th s, please correct me if I am wrong.

Only as far as camera shake goes does it change the 'effective' shutter speed. If anything is moving in your frame it will still have motion blur because the shutter speed is still 1/4s in your example.

JohnSebs, welcome to the forum. I've been in lighting like that (there's one at my parents' house that I always have to be careful about), but actually most fluorescent lighting these days has high frequency ballasts and doesn't run at double the mains frequency (60Hz here in the states) but at something like 10,000Hz or higher. It's easy to test with the D90—you just turn on live view and see if the scene flickers on the screen. If it does, it's probably a low-frequency ballast.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

practically every bulb in japan is florescent (now moving towards led) and they are 50hz or 60hz depending on the area you are in. the coil type ones may have this ballast you talk of. i bought a nive 6500K one from yodobashi camera, but the circle florescents and straight tubes are all pulsing.

they don't run at double the frequency. they run at the frequency, but you can make do with half a pulse, ie: from the darkest point to the brightest point. a full pulse would be from dark to bright back to dark.

easy to see if you shoot at 1/160 or faster in continuous high speed. 1/200 is OK on some pics but you are lucky to get anything useable esp faster than that. there are big brown bands and blotches that are almost impossible to correct.

offices are not places for taking photos, but i have really been lucky to be able to take thousands of kids photos practising while i work.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

That's interesting that it's hard to find high-frequency fluorescents in Japan, Gareth. I would think that's where the high-frequency electronic ballasts were invented!

With magnetic ballasts, they will run at double the AC line frequency. The mains voltage is a sine wave, and you get an arc through the gas in the tube every time the line voltage goes to its highest voltage—say, 110V—and then again at its lowest voltage (-110V in this case, but I know that's not technically the true max voltage in the states but rather the RMS voltage). So if your line frequency is 50Hz you actually get 100 pulses of light from the fluorescent per second. We've kind of hijacked this thread, haven't we? Sorry, JohnSebs.

Posted 2 years ago #
Gareth

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 591
offline

that is interesting. i hope the problem is solved when i get back to new zealand!

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Thanks for your thoughts, all appreciated. I don't exactly know the voltage used at home, all I do know is that at the moment, indoors I am getting very slow shutter speeds in the range 1/2 s to probably 1/25 s on average even with ISO pumped up to around 1600 but that is on a standard kit lens which when zoomed is 5.6 aperture. So getting 2.8 constant certainly will help and give me chance to take photos (portraits) handheld and I'm hoping to reduce motion blur for slow action/movements to capture spontaneous photos where people acting normal and not the traditional look at the camera and pose.
Yesterday just got inundated with bills and repairs so less and less likely will I be able to afford the Nikon VRII which $3k Aussie dollars, so I'm really stuck with getting Sigma HSM VII for $950 or the new Sigma OS for about $1650. Its about practicalities and I'm not a pro or in business of photography and for me its about getting value for money now and being able to get better shots with a reliable lens which won't give me problems in the future.

Thanks again for your thoughts and anyone whose used Sigmas particularly 70-200 or know of anyone who has used it, any comments would be appreciated.

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

What about an 85 1.8D, John? That gives you ~8 times the light you have at f/5.6, so you can live closer to ISO 800 at 1/120s. That's not impossible to handhold and gets you in the more useable ISO range. It's also less expensive than these other options and would give you a feel for whether you need more reach than 85mm on DX. You might not, especially since the sports you mention are courtside.

The thing to remember about sports is you'll be looking to stop action, so VR is less important to you than if you were shooting something stationary like a portrait. What you need is more sensitivity (ISO performance) or a wider aperture. There's no way around that to stop subject motion because you won't be able to choose your shutter speed. Does that make sense?

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

Thanks Jonny, I was going to get 50mm 1.8 to complement the 70-200mm because its so cheap and I've heard nothing but good thing about the lens and great value for money.

I've already got a 18-105mm and the zoom is no where near enough to get the photos I want as sometimes I can be quite a distance away to watch or I really want to take some close up shots. I also go to outdoor sports at night (its Football/Rubgy League in Aust)and just can't get the zoom I need to capture faces or just closer tighter shots and even at weddings/events sometimes I can be far away as I am not the main photographer but would still love take pics from different angles and parts of the room...that's why I want 70-200 plus in future I can get tele converters to get even more distance in the future (but that's way in to the future) as long as the the lens I get now has capacity to do so.

But you make a good point, i've read the 85mm is probably a better focal length for portraits in general and yes I'll probably spend a bit more...but in long run might be worth it and hopefully within the budget...or will need to save more to buy it...

Thanks again

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Have you looked at the 70-300 VR? I know it's not a constant aperture so it would definitely be less useful for night football/rugby, but I used it for a week last month and was really impressed with it. You might have better luck with the sigma, though. I haven't tried it and haven't read anything about it.

Posted 2 years ago #
JohnSebs

member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 43
offline

My initial thoughts was to get 70-300mm and 50mm 1.8 but having done research over the last couple of months and having taken thousands of photos with the 18-105mm, I would be getting similar quality shots indoors but with the extra zoom so its good to get closer to the action however the shutter speeds would be too slow for my liking and I'd be getting more blurred shots. For weddings I would get the reach but again same story aperture would be 5.6 or 6.3 where as constant 2.8 I have better chance of getting better shots even stopped down to f4 to get sharper shots. I would be relying a lot more on my 50mm to get portraits but with a 70-200mm unless I am taking lots of group shots I am hoping to get away with using this lens hopefully with OS at 2.8 and get nice portraits at the 70-100mm range and have the flexibility to get closer shots of sports or anything really....difference between $1650 and $3000 is huge between Sigma and Nikon they both have VR but I believe one thing Sigma does not have the all weather sealing to protect the lens and camera...ofocurse they have different configurations but they both offer 2.8 VR at 70-200mm and I've also read that with the Nikon you drastically lose zoom at closer distances so instead of getting 200mm zoom you get like 135mm, I know all cameras lose a bit of zoom at closer distances but that's one where Nikon VRII does not do well on.
Thanks again for the advise and options...I'm hoping to buy it within a month...so just gotta test them out, keep watching out for reviews and hopefully if there's anyone that used Sigma 70-200mm lenses before can provide any further comment, that would be of great benefit.
Thanks again

Posted 2 years ago #