Alternative to Nikon 70 - 200mm $2000 lens?

jbylake

Dodging the Men in Black
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
730
Reaction score
35
Location
State of Confusion.
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
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.
 
Tamron 70-200 VC?
 
70-200 Version I.
 
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:345:
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.....:aiwebs_016: and see which one get's full the fastest.:biggrin-93:

Thanks to all of you,
J
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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
 
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!
 
70-200/4G? Despite denials that this lens is too slow, Canon shooters happily bought containers full of their version.
 
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.
 
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.
 
jbylake said:
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.
 
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
 

Most reactions

Back
Top