Thoughts on 3rd party 70-200 MM 2.8

[IanK]

I shot at the track for the first time this season yesterday it was also the first time with my D90 and 70-300MM nikkor lens. To say the least the lens is terrible HaHa I knew this already but I really didn't realize how bad it was. It focus's so slow and dumbfounded on fast moving objects its almost not worth even having. Luckily my friend had his 70-200 2.8 Nikkor with him and i had access to that all day, which is fantastic and really dominates for sports photography. So I have to replace this lens very soon, but the Nikkor 2.8 is INSANELY expensive and just not going to happen at this point, so my question is does anyone use sigmas/tamrons version of the 70-200 for there sports photos ? if so how do you like it, how comparable to nikons 70-200 2.8 is it, and is it worth the price over cheap nikon lens's like the 18-200 or 70-300 4-5.6 ? I have never used anything other than nikkor lens's any insight is appreciated.

-Ian

PS: Thank god for friends with expensive toys, saved my day

 

[bigtwinky]

I can't comment specifically on the 70-200, but I did purchase a Tamron 28-75 and find that the focusing is pretty slow. The salesguy told me this, and he was right. Its great for portraits and stills, but for anything moving, I am having issues. Could just be me though.

I am not sure however if this is just the 28-75 or a standard for Tamron lenses

 

[dhilberg]

You might consider the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 instead. It's nearly half the price of the 70-200 f/2.8, and has basically identical optics. Plus, you're still getting the Nikkor build quality. I have one and it is excellent. It's not an AF-S lens (no built-in focus motor), but the focus is still very quick.

The 3rd party ones are only a few hundred bucks cheaper, and from what I've heard, are just not worth it, in terms of both optics and build quality.

Nikon | 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod | 1986

 

[IanK]

Hmm Thanks,i wonder how the focusing speed compares to the 70-200 2.8

 

[bhop]

The 80-200 without AF-S will depend on what camera you're using it on as far as focus speed. I have the Sigma 70-200 HSM, it focuses fast. Nearly as fast as Nikon AF-S. The build quality is fine. It's Sigma's pro line after all. Slightly lighter than the Nikon. It's a little soft wide open, but for the price difference, and the focus speed (which I need for motorsports) I feel it was definitely "worth it"

 

[itznfb]

based on my rental experiences i'd say go for the 80-200mm Nikkor or 70-200 Sigma. i rented the tamron 70-200mm, sigma 70-200mm, nikkor 80-200mm and nikkor 70-200mm before i purchased one and obviously my favorite was the 70-200 nikkor. the tamron was decent build quality but performed like i expected the 3rd party lens to. the sigma surprised me and i was having a tough decision between the sigma and 80-200mm nikkor. i ended up with the 70-200 nikkor though =] because i'm a consumer whore.

 

[IanK]

LOL thanks guys, Im quite the consumer whore myself, nothing but nikkor glass (until now) but i have heard some great things about sigmas 70-200 2.8. Bhop your photos are exactly what I shoot, they look fantastic. Thanks again guys.