Need a 70-200mm lens! [nikon]HELP!

[Pure]

So I'm buying a D90, but I can't afford a 70-200mm f/2.8

What can I get that won't cost more than 1000 but still has a similar range?

f/3.5 is fine becuase it will all be high light, lower ISO so speed isn't super necessary.

 

[plastii]

How about:

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di LD IF for around $700
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II EX DG $800

 

[Village Idiot]

A Canon 40D and 70-200 f/2.8?

Heh...That's what sucks about Nikon's 70-200 line. They have one.

Look at the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. I hear that's a good piece of glass and is only about $1000, iirc.

 

[Txaggie08]

The sigma is a tack sharp lens, I would honestly go that route.

 

[skieur]

The sigma is a tack sharp lens, I would honestly go that route.

The Tamron tests out better than the Sigma particularly as you get closer to the 200mm end.

skieur

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I have the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8D and it's razor sharp, and built to last. It's dropped 6 feet onto asphalt and it still works and is just as sharp as the day I bought it, even when the cap and lens hood shattered on impact.

 

[Pure]

Since $1920 is totally reasonable price for both, and reading reviews about the 80-200 i'm going to go with that.

Where else can I get the D90 since BH is sold out?

 

[Village Idiot]

amazon.com
adorama.com
mpex.com

 

[skiboarder72]

The Tamron tests out better than the Sigma particularly as you get closer to the 200mm end.

skieur

I really don't like that lens... its autofocus sounds (and acts like) its on its last legs

 

[Txaggie08]

The Tamron tests out better than the Sigma particularly as you get closer to the 200mm end.

skieur

I've shot with both, and felt the sigma was th sharper of the two. May be the particular samples I had, but that's my opinion.

 

[Pure]

Anybody have any issues with this?


http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D90-Digit...hZ001QQcategoryZ31388QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

[Original company]
http://www.cameta.com/

Reseller ratings
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/CametaCamera

And THIS lens?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html

 

[Pure]

Also, I need a good, and strong monopod for under $40

 

[tenlientl]

I was considering the 70-200mm for when I buy new lens(January, haha).

I wasn't sure yet though. I also looked at the 80-200mm. Ive read the 70-200mm is bettery, but not by that much. I got a few months, so we'll see.

How are Tamron and Sigma lenses compared to Nikon? I wouldn't mind paying more $ if Nikon is better. I'm also not sure if I want a f/2.8. It'll be used outside, who knows.

 

[Pure]

Well the 70-200 is better, but it costs almost double than the 80-200.

The 70-200 is $1700 and the 80-200 is $950ish.

The main difference is the lack of VR and a smaller focal range, and like 1 less ED element.


The 70-200mm for sure is worth the money, its rated as a pro lens.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

If you can afford it, Tenlienti, I would say get the 70-200 VR. If you get it used, then it won't be that much more than the 80-200, and the addition of VR means you can use the lens in the darkest of nights without a tripod (well, maybe that's a little extreme, but VR can make the difference).

To Pure: I would say that if you need a monopod, don't skimp out on it. If you're going to be spending $2,000 on kit, it's well worth buying a $100-150 monopod or tripod. It's like buying an Aston Martin, but only getting it a $10 DIY car alarm kit for it.