Should I get these lenses used? 70-200; 24-70; maybe a prime?

[DGMPhotography]

I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.

I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.

FYI if you are seeing the FL listed for $2400 new it is probably grey market..

Ebay from a well rated seller.

 

[coastalconn]

I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.

I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.

FYI if you are seeing the FL listed for $2400 new it is probably grey market..

Ebay from a well rated seller.

Yep Grey market then.. Nikon USA will not touch it. US version is $2796

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.

I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.

FYI if you are seeing the FL listed for $2400 new it is probably grey market..

Ebay from a well rated seller.

Yep Grey market then.. Nikon USA will not touch it. US version is $2796

I've heard something about this before.. can you elaborate?

 

[coastalconn]

I'm looking at the FL, and I think if I can book another gig or two I could be able to get it. I'm finding it listed for $2400. The more I read about it the more in love I fall.

I think I need to test out the G2 and the FL and see what I think.

FYI if you are seeing the FL listed for $2400 new it is probably grey market..

Ebay from a well rated seller.

Yep Grey market then.. Nikon USA will not touch it. US version is $2796

I've heard something about this before.. can you elaborate?

What are Gray Market Products?

 

[Derrel]

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, and then later the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and never used either at f/2.8 because the image quality is not that great at f/2.8, and there's very little DOF at f/2.8. I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model, and not the f/2.8; personally, in this day of better high-ISO cameras, I think the f/2.8 70-200 zoom lens is mostly a hold-over from the days of ISO 100 to 200 color films.

I think the f/4 lens would be a better investment, at around $700 Craigslist used, up to around $990-$1050 used brick and mortar for a USA-imported (not gray market) used model.

I have bought 95% os my lenses used for the better part of four decades now; used is the way to go, IMHO.

 

[Destin]

I had the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR, and then later the 80-200/2.8 AF-S, and never used either at f/2.8 because the image quality is not that great at f/2.8, and there's very little DOF at f/2.8. I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model, and not the f/2.8; personally, in this day of better high-ISO cameras, I think the f/2.8 70-200 zoom lens is mostly a hold-over from the days of ISO 100 to 200 color films.

I think the f/4 lens would be a better investment, at around $700 Craigslist used, up to around $990-$1050 used brick and mortar for a USA-imported (not gray market) used model.

I have bought 95% os my lenses used for the better part of four decades now; used is the way to go, IMHO.

Maybe for portraiture and stuff. But if you shoot sports or anything in low light (weddings) that stop of ISO performance makes a big difference.

For me it’s the difference between 6400 and 12800 when shooting football under the lights. That’s still a significant difference in image quality.

 

[Tomasko]

Sure, but there are other factors as well. For example the price is double for 2.8 and also it weighs twice as the f/4 version. If you need to carry it all day, it's a significant difference too.
But yeah, it ultimately ends up being decided by what you really need. If that 1-stop difference is that huge in your application, it's a great lens.

 

[nerwin]

I'd go for the 70-200 for sure.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Has anyone shot with the FL?

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

Why not just rent a few and try them before dropping thousands?
I also remember reading Tamron licences Nikon tech, not sure of the validity of that though.

 

[coastalconn]

That reminds me Roger over at lens rentals did a bench test awhile ago with the G2.. MTF Lens Tests of the New Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 SP Di VC USD G2
I have not and will not shoot with the FL because I think the price is ridiculous... My 500 F4 was only like 1k more and that is a real lens....

 

[Frank F.]

1.4/105E

 

[Solarflare]

I too would recomment getting the Tamron G2 lenses. I'm not much into zooms, but from what one can hear from others, they are cheaper, optically as good or better, and autofocus isnt an issue either, so what more can you ask ?

I really want the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR model,

I own that lens; it was among my first three full frame lenses. But while its indeed super sharp, I think its nowadays a really bad bang for the buck deal.

 

[jaomul]

Compatability is not so much an issue now with sigma leading and tamron copying the idea of a dock to upgrade the lens through a pc rather than sending it in to get sorted by a dealer.

The tamron 150-600 was getting slightly better reviews than the sigma 150-600c when I bought about a year or so ago, but the siggy had a dock that comforted me in its purchase. I got the dock, never used it. The lens has been permanently attached to my d7200 for about 6 months- it's sharp and responsive. Graphs and user preferences will say there are better lenses, but at a cost. It supposedly matches the Nikon 200-500, but is 150-600 at a slightly lower price.

Third party lenses have come a long way and without the worry they'll not be compatible. Have a look at the Tammy's suggested, the g2 versions supposedly kick as..

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

Those docks sound really interesting with being able to calibrate at different zoom levels.