Alternative to Nikon 70 - 200mm $2000 lens?

[SquarePeg]

I got the Tamron 70-300 VC f/4-5.6 for $349 after a $100 rebate (not sure if still going on). My plan is to use it until I can afford one of the more expensive options. I've haven't had many chances to test it out since I got it last month but so far so good. However, I'm not a birder or a serious sports/action photographer - I just wanted some more reach for my general and landscape shots. I think the VC is really good. Here are a couple of shots with it from my recent visit to Animal Kingdom on the safari ride. The pics were taken while on a moving and very bouncy truck. I'm still learning how to use it and nature shots are not really my thing... the first shot was at 190mm and the second was at 300mm.

Disney15_1190a by SharonCat..., on Flickr

Disney15_1375a by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[goodguy]

As always these "What lens/camera should I get" posts are not so helpful, we pretty much give a million answers some contradict other posts.

To OP if you are more confused now then you were before posting this thread best if you stop, do your own research and get the best equipment that matches your taste and pocket.

BTW I still say go for the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm 2.8

 

[480sparky]

As always these "What lens/camera should I get" posts are not so helpful, we pretty much give a million answers some contradict other posts.

To OP if you are more confused now then you were before posting this thread best if you stop, do your own research and get the best equipment that matches your taste and pocket.

BTW I still say go for the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm 2.8

And what 'research' would expect the OP to do? Read the manufacturer's specs? And then what?

Would not asking those who have been down this road what their opinions are be considered 'doing research'?

 

[hamlet]

My 70-200 vrii is probably my favorite lens. My camera cant even keep up with how fast it grabs focus.

 

[shadowlands]

I paid $600.00 or $700.00 for my Nikon AF 80-200mm f2.8D. Loved it!
But I did recently sell it and upgraded to the original Nikon 70-200mm VR I. I paid like $1100.00 for it, used with warranty.
KEH bargain grade. Love it!!!!!!

 

[jbylake]

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate your experiences and recommendations. Many of the lenses that some of you've mentioned, I have already taken a look at. Lots of useful info here, and a lot to consider. Maybe I'll take a few days "off", from lenses, and then revisit this thread with a "clearer" mind.

Again, thanks to all,
J.

 

[astroNikon]

Thank you all for your input. I appreciate your experiences and recommendations. Many of the lenses that some of you've mentioned, I have already taken a look at. Lots of useful info here, and a lot to consider. Maybe I'll take a few days "off", from lenses, and then revisit this thread with a "clearer" mind.

Again, thanks to all,
J.

couple days off to regain focus and zoom in on a decision ... pun intended

 

[hamlet]

A hamster for scale if you are having trouble op


Poofmas by hamlet on Photography Forum

 

[480sparky]

A hamster for scale if you are having trouble op


Poofmas by hamlet on Photography Forum

Hey, everyone: Poof is back!

 

[goodguy]

As always these "What lens/camera should I get" posts are not so helpful, we pretty much give a million answers some contradict other posts.

To OP if you are more confused now then you were before posting this thread best if you stop, do your own research and get the best equipment that matches your taste and pocket.

BTW I still say go for the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm 2.8

And what 'research' would expect the OP to do? Read the manufacturer's specs? And then what?

Would not asking those who have been down this road what their opinions are be considered 'doing research'?

I am simply saying to read what we all share here but also do research like read reviews on various lenses and see reviews on youtube.

If we all said get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 or get the Nikon 70-200mm f4 then it would be easy but with so many options its best if OP use more sources then just us on this forum to haw a broader view.

 

[480sparky]

As always these "What lens/camera should I get" posts are not so helpful, we pretty much give a million answers some contradict other posts.

To OP if you are more confused now then you were before posting this thread best if you stop, do your own research and get the best equipment that matches your taste and pocket.

BTW I still say go for the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm 2.8

And what 'research' would expect the OP to do? Read the manufacturer's specs? And then what?

Would not asking those who have been down this road what their opinions are be considered 'doing research'?

I am simply saying to read what we all share here but also do research like read reviews on various lenses and see reviews on youtube.

If we all said get the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 or get the Nikon 70-200mm f4 then it would be easy but with so many options its best if OP use more sources then just us on this forum to haw a broader view.

Fair 'nuff.

 

[hamlet]

Don't sweat the f2.8 on this lens OP, your field of view will be so small that you'll rarely ever use f2.8. At least that's been my experience. My favourite aperture on the VRII is f4.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

F4 is tough enough to get focused well. I have a old 70-210 f4 AF. I like it on the D90 and F5.

Here's one from the D90 @1/800 f4 ISO 400.

​

 

[gckless]

If you don't need f/4, what about the Nikon 70-300mm VR? It's great up to 200mm, and only falls off a little after that. Much cheaper if you're looking for a budget decision.

 

[Braineack]

Don't sweat the f2.8 on this lens OP, your field of view will be so small that you'll rarely ever use f2.8.

DOF not FOV. and completely subjective.

If you don't need f/4, what about the Nikon 70-300mm VR?

There's really no comparing a 70-200 2.8 to a 70-300 5.6.


The 70-200 f/4 is sharp and light and makes the next best choice if someone doesnt want to consider Tamron's stellar 70-200 VC or Sigma's cheap 2.8.