70-200 F2.8 fast/sport suggestion

[Toshanda]

We have a dog in some agility classes and I had noticed a lady taking awesome pictures with her Cannon and this lens; I was really impressed with the quality and the sharpness of pictures of moving dogs and would like to get one of these lenses for my Nikon D7200. Nikon lens is out of my price range and I was looking at Sigma and Tamron for better price point.
Does anyone has any experience with these. Is Nikon one really worth the 3500 mark??? Is Sigma better than Tamron??? Are there any other options for this kind of sports shooting???

 

[Overread]

I've heard good things of the newer Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, though I can't really go into specifics as I've not been lens shopping for that lens in a long while so I'm rather out of touch. I would wager that the Nikkor will likely have the best AF performance and an edge in general optical performance, but that it won't be a night and day difference. The Sigma and Tamron are more than capable lenses for what you want.

The greater weakness in the setup will be yourself; after that there's the lens AF performance and the cameras native AF performance as well.

That said considering that both your currently listed lenses in your signature are superzooms (both cover a very large range of focal lengths) I think you really will be impressed with the 70-200mm performance no matter which version you get.

For agility, sports, equine, dogs, etc... its a very solid workhorse of a lens for that type of work and one of the most popular choices. It offers a good range of focal lengths whilst being fast to focus and the f2.8 not only gives you a good aperture for subject isolation; but also good light gathering which helps both exposure and also auto focus in dimmer conditions (eg indoor events).

 

[Derrel]

Look for a Nikon version 1. 70- 200 VR

 

[photoflyer]

I have the lens your friend was shooting with ( Canon 70-200 f 2.8 L ) and it is fantastic. I cannot speak to the equivalent Nikon lens but the Canon is built like a tank. So much so that I would suggest you consider the used market if the Nikon is as durable the Canon. Someone here will know. These kinds of lenses will make you smile. Today I was simply looking through the viewfinder with the 70-200 and thought "Heavens that is so vibrant and clear."

 

[JoeW]

I've got a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 and I'm pretty happy with it. For instance, I'm going to shoot hummingbirds with it tomorrow morning.

That said....I think the larger issues (especially for shooting dog agility) will be intelligent positioning and anticipation. Fortunately, if you know agility, you'll know the course sequence. And you'll know to aim for some particularly dramatic shots (like your dog coming out of the tunnel or emerging at the top of the A-frame. And that's less about the lens and more about doing some pre-focus. I also warn you that attempting to shoot a fast moving target coming straight at you will be a challenge for any AF system (well, maybe not a D500 or D5 but you get my point).

 

[Strodav]

I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2 and am very happy with it. Have used it on my D7200 as well as a D850 with excellent results. In fact, it rarely comes off the D850. If you look at the dxomark.com lens database you will find the Tamron is highly rated.

For more expensive glass I recommend try before you buy. I am happy with lensrental.com. You might want to look at used for your purchase. I am happy with KEH.com

 

[Derrel]

Nikkor 70-200 f/4 VR should be considered

 

[Cincinnati]

We have a dog in some agility classes and I had noticed a lady taking awesome pictures with her Cannon and this lens; I was really impressed with the quality and the sharpness of pictures of moving dogs and would like to get one of these lenses for my Nikon D7200. Nikon lens is out of my price range and I was looking at Sigma and Tamron for better price point.
Does anyone has any experience with these. Is Nikon one really worth the 3500 mark??? Is Sigma better than Tamron??? Are there any other options for this kind of sports shooting???

Your options range from maybe a few hundred dollars used to $7000 new. Nikon has a f/2.8 and an f/4. Assuming the f/2.8 is out of budget range. an alternative to the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mmf/2.8 VR II:

Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II is $950 (NEW)
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR $1350 (NEW)

DXOmark.com rates both of these fairly high in your choices. If you’ve never used their site, you can select your camera and a variety of different lenses they have tested and see the results. Keep in mind, as you later replace the D7200 with better sensors, the performance of lenses become more important. When I upgraded from a D3s to a D850, the old nikon glass was no longer the king of the hill as far as sharpness, distortion, & aberrations. Buy as much lens as you can afford.

You spec out your need for a fast lens with less than top of the line cost. Between these 2, if you can afford the Nikkor, it is a better lens, but not as fast. Sharpeness is virtually identical. Where the Nikkor shines is in much less pronounced chromatic aberrations than the Sigma. Some of this may be able to be corrected out in Lightroom. If the extra stop is more important to you, go with the Sigma.

The DXOmark.com site lists performance for the more expensive lenses out of your range. If you can find one of these in good condition on the used marked you may want to evaluate that option as well. Also look at the refurbished Nikkor on Nikon’s site as well was at B&H.

 

[zombiesniper]

Personally before I paid $1300 for an F4 version I would look at the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2. It's about the same price as the F4.

Here's a decent article comparing two Nikon and 2 Tamron 70-200 2.8's.

 

[RVT1K]

While the comparison may not be direct, I think there is a correlation..

I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR I and a Tamrom 300mm f/2.8. Even when mated with a 1.7x tele-converter, the Nikon takes sharper pictures.

Personally, I have had good luck on both eBay and Craigslist and would look for a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. It took some time and effort to get a good deal but I got my 70-200 from eBay. Its been all over the world with me, taken a zillion shots, and has never had an issue.

 

[photoflyer]

would look for a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. It took some time and effort to get a good deal but I got my 70-200 from eBay. Its been all over the world with me, taken a zillion shots, and has never had an issue.

There you go. That was the point I was making: these lenses are tough so a used one in good shape will have plenty of shots left in it. They do tend to hold their value. You won't regret getting the 2.8. It also gives you room to grow. Put a 1.4 teleconverter on it and you're still only at f4 but now (on full frame) almost 300mm at the long end.

 

[Dove09]

Tamron 70-200 2.8 vr is a a beast. I use it for bands on stage, low light, and moving like a bunch of animals. I have no complaints.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

If you're impressed with "moving dogs" photos, it sounds like you lack shutter speed and maybe more depth of field. I shoot with canon L lenses and can get good results with a 55-250mm EF-S lens on my crop body as well. I think try something above 1/800 and f5.6 or so and see how you do with the lenses you have.

 

[Toshanda]

If you're impressed with "moving dogs" photos, it sounds like you lack shutter speed and maybe more depth of field. I shoot with canon L lenses and can get good results with a 55-250mm EF-S lens on my crop body as well. I think try something above 1/800 and f5.6 or so and see how you do with the lenses you have.

Thank you. This actually worked. The sharpness was there. A bit too much light, but I will play around with this.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

If you're impressed with "moving dogs" photos, it sounds like you lack shutter speed and maybe more depth of field. I shoot with canon L lenses and can get good results with a 55-250mm EF-S lens on my crop body as well. I think try something above 1/800 and f5.6 or so and see how you do with the lenses you have.

Thank you. This actually worked. The sharpness was there. A bit too much light, but I will play around with this.

If your depth of field is good, try 1/1600 and see how that does. Or if you have it available, use auto iso and just make sure on the view finder if your iso is at 100 that the meter is in the middle or slightly to the left, not the right.