Zoom Lens

[tevo]

Want to get a zoom lens for my Nikon D7000, at least 200mm, as sharp as possible, and want to obtain said lens for around 500 dollars (cheaper if possible). The lens does not have to retail for this - I'll try to find it used. My point in saying that is I already know a lot of people will reccomend the f/2.8 70-200, which I don't have money for at the moment.

Thanks in advance!

 

[TheFantasticG]

Save more money then?

I think the sharpest you're going to get for over 200mm and under $500 is the Nikon 70-300 VR. Which when combined with the Nikon 16-85 VR makes the perfect tourist package.

 

[tevo]

Save more money then?

I think the sharpest you're going to get for over 200mm and under $500 is the Nikon 70-300 VR. Which when combined with the Nikon 16-85 VR makes the perfect tourist package.

At least 200mm, meaning 200 is ok. How much more money are you talking about? Lets bump the bar up to 1000.

 

[analog.universe]

Mayhaps a used Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro? (had to google that name, certainly wasn't gonna remember it :lmao

 

[tevo]

Mayhaps a used Sigma AF 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM APO Macro? (had to google that name, certainly wasn't gonna remember it :lmao

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579-306 B&H This is the one below.. what do you think?

 

[TheFantasticG]

If you get the Sigma, pick it up used. Most people use it until they can afford the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1 or 2.

 

[tevo]

If you get the Sigma, pick it up used. Most people use it until they can afford the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1 or 2.

That's what I plan on doing.

 

[Patrice]

Tevo,

One of the best pre-owned zooms in that focal length range and in that price range is a Nikon push-pull 80-200 f/2.8. A pro lens with all the pro lens qualities you can expect from a top end nikkor from a few years ago.

 

[tevo]

Tevo,

One of the best pre-owned zooms in that focal length range and in that price range is a Nikon push-pull 80-200 f/2.8. A pro lens with all the pro lens qualities you can expect from a top end nikkor from a few years ago.

I may have just been sold on that. Does it have sharp images at higher focal lengths? The Sigma apparently isnt as sharp when you are at 200mm

 

[Markw]

If you have $1k to spend, get the 2-touch, non-AF-S version. It has both zoom and focus rings, instead of a push-pull single ring. I have it, and it's sharp. I only really use it at 200mm, and all of my photos with it have been sharp (the keepers, that is). It's a fantastic lens. Built like a tank, beautiful optics. Good price for the quality.

Mark

 

[tevo]

If you have $1k to spend, get the 2-touch, non-AF-S version. It has both zoom and focus rings, instead of a push-pull single ring. I have it, and it's sharp. I only really use it at 200mm, and all of my photos with it have been sharp (the keepers, that is). It's a fantastic lens. Built like a tank, beautiful optics. Good price for the quality.

Mark

I would much prefer the 2 touch, but I am considering the Sigma. Ideally I will only end up spending 6-700 .

 

[BJF]

I have a 70-300 VR and love it a lot.

Nikon 70-300mm VR + sample photos + market price

 

[Markw]

You should be able to find an 80-200/2.8 ED IF for $6-700 someplace. If not, KEH has used for $751. The 70-300 is a great choice as well, but, clearly, the 70-200 Sigma and 80-200 Nikkor are overall better choices.

Mark

 

[Kerbouchard]

For 600-700, I would second the Nikon 80-200 2.8. Simply cannot be beat at that price point.

 

[analog.universe]

The tests and reviews that I saw indicate nearly the identical optical performance between the Sigma 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200. The Sigma does focus .5 meter closer though, and thus has a higher maximum magnification. Check out photozone.de or similar...