Alternative to Nikon 70 - 200mm $2000 lens?

[jbylake]

I'm wondering if there is an alternative to Nikon's 70-200mm F 2.8 2K ($2000 USD) lens? I understand that cheaper lenses, well, they can be "cheap". I can continue to save for the Nikon, but am wondering if I might be missing a "diamond in the rough" that can perform like the Nikon.

Thanks ahead for your valuable time,

J.

 

[PaulWog]

Tamron 70-200 VC?

 

[Rob99]

Used 80-200 Nikon

 

[480sparky41 41]

70-200 Version I.

 

[jbylake]

Damn, I appreciate all of your input. But the "alternatives" like Tokina, Sigma, et al.. aren't even mentioned, and the len's that have been mentioned, are as expensive as a used Nikon
Guess I need to save some more bucks. Looks like some of the lens's mentioned are only a couple of hundred dollars different. I was hoping for something much less that could come close, but I guess my want's are just one of those "want in one hand and "poop" in the other..... and see which one get's full the fastest.

Thanks to all of you,
J

 

[480sparky41 41]

When did Tamron raise the price of their 70-200 from $1500 to $2100?

Another option is to buy used. Buy smart and you can save a hefty chunk of change.

 

[jbylake]

When did Tamron raise the price of their 70-200 from $1500 to $2100?

Another option is to buy used. Buy smart and you can save a hefty chunk of change.

Sparky, not quite that much, but go to EBAY. Prices for used Tamron are within a few hundrend of Nikon.
If I have to spend within 200 or so for the Nikon, I'll just save 200 bucks and buy the Nikon. I was, maybe foolishly, hoping to get something close at poor boy prices. .Tamron prices came off Ebay.
thanks,
J.

 

[480sparky41 41]

When did Tamron raise the price of their 70-200 from $1500 to $2100?

Another option is to buy used. Buy smart and you can save a hefty chunk of change.

Sparky, not quite that much, but go to EBAY. Prices for used Tamron are within a few hundrend of Nikon.
If I have to spend within 200 or so for the Nikon, I'll just save 200 bucks and buy the Nikon. I was, maybe foolishly, hoping to get something close at poor boy prices. .Tamron prices came off Ebay.
thanks,
J.

Not calling you a liar, but I find it hard to believe that a Nikon loses that much of it's value compared to a Tamron.

You might be comparing the Nikon version 1. V2 sells for more. And the rare occasion that a V2 sells for such a low price is usually for three reasons: a. there's a flaw that is not in the title, but buried in the description and b. it's a BIN price posted by someone who doesn't know how to research prices, or c. An outright error in the listing..

 

[pixmedic]

Brand new tamron 70-200 2.8 VC on ebay for $1000ish.
Non VC (like the one I'm selling) around $500ish.
Could also check on the sigma version

 

[goodguy]

70-200mm non Nikon lenses

Tamron is pretty close to the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 II and its much cheaper
Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS is another excellent lens, its lightly cheaper then the Tamron and slightly less sharp but it is still a great lens well worth considering.
When I bought my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC I checked the Sigma, it was 100$ cheaper, I didn't see a reason to save 100$ and get the Sigma but as I said its a great lens and worth considering.
Cheaper then that you will need to consider buying used, and there is nothing wrong with that!

 

[cgw118 144]

70-200/4G? Despite denials that this lens is too slow, Canon shooters happily bought containers full of their version.

 

[astroNikon]

Last time I checked there were significant $$ difference of the Tamron and the newest Nikon new.
Even more $$ difference if you bought used, and more if you bought the older iterations.
I use a 80-200/2.8 AF-D which is only about $700ish used.

 

[jbylake]

When did Tamron raise the price of their 70-200 from $1500 to $2100?

Another option is to buy used. Buy smart and you can save a hefty chunk of change.

Sparky, not quite that much, but go to EBAY. Prices for used Tamron are within a few hundrend of Nikon.
If I have to spend within 200 or so for the Nikon, I'll just save 200 bucks and buy the Nikon. I was, maybe foolishly, hoping to get something close at poor boy prices. .Tamron prices came off Ebay.
thanks,
J.

Not calling you a liar, but I find it hard to believe that a Nikon loses that much of it's value compared to a Tamron.

You might be comparing the Nikon version 1. V2 sells for more. And the rare occasion that a V2 sells for such a low price is usually for three reasons: a. there's a flaw that is not in the title, but buried in the description and b. it's a BIN price posted by someone who doesn't know how to research prices, or c. An outright error in the listing..

Thanks for not calling me a liar. I might have been mistaken, I had been pricing lenses all night, all over the net. Confused, maybe, but I have no reason or desire to lie to you.

Thank you,
J.

 

[Derrel]

I'm wondering if there is an alternative to Nikon's 70-200mm F 2.8 2K ($2000 USD) lens? I understand that cheaper lenses, well, they can be "cheap". I can continue to save for the Nikon, but am wondering if I might be missing a "diamond in the rough" that can perform like the Nikon.

Thanks ahead for your valuable time,

J.

For use on a DX camera, I'd look to the 70-200 VR as a good value/low price option, meaning the "VR-1" model, which has nice bokeh and a slender barrel which makes it probably the trimmest, easiest-to-carry and easiest-to-handle f/2.8 zoom in this category. At landscape distances on the FX-sized capture areas with 24 or 36 MP cameras, the corners are not very good, even stopped down to the mid-aperture range; it was DESIGNED for APS-C, and it's very good on that format.

The Nikon 80-200 AF-S is what I replaced my VR-1 with. It was designed for 24 x 36 format, and has better-placed focus hold buttons than the VR-1, which had them wayyyyyyy out on the front of the barrel in a totally dumb location. This lens is much handier for portrait work than most other lenses, due to the mid-barrel focus lock buttons, and exactly how they've been optimized for both talls, and for wide framed shots.

For slower, deliberate work, like scenics/landscapes or tripod-mounted shooting, the 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S is quite a good lens for under $100.

I think the 70-200 f/4 VR would be a smart choice as a lighter, smaller alternative to any manufacturer's 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 model.

 

[Don Kondra]

FWIW > I have a "friend" who is part of a group that photographs owls. Between them they have both the Nikon 70-200 f4 and f2.8.

Their consensus was that the f4 was perhaps slightly sharper, half the weight and roughly half the price.

I purchased the f4 version for $1000 used

Cheers, Don