f2.8 zoom lens for nikon

[Braineack]

makes sense; I didn't see DX stamped on it.

 

[Derrel]

Why is the VRII so much better/desired for a FF, but the VRI is okay for a DX?

The VR "1" version was optimized for the smaller, DX-sized image circle...it's really good at delivering even illumination and high sharpness across the smaller DX-frame, but it has a lot of light falloff on FX's 43mm diameter image circle, and also, the corner sharpness on FX frames is not all that good until the lens is WELL stopped down, meaning at wider f/stops of FX Nikons, the corners are simply NOT sharp for things like landscape photography.Here

Here is a small gallery I uploaded of five D3x 24MP captures shot with the 70-200 VR "One" lens; look closely at the corners and you can see that the optics are simply NOT up to "professional" grade level on higher-megapixel, Nikon full-frame cameras.

70-200 VR I corner issue Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

As you can see, even at f/6.3, the corners are not up to snuff,and are visibly "wonky" on 24MP FX; on 36MP FX, they'll look even worse.

 

[hamlet]

Word to the wise: the VRII lens is one heavy behemoth. So cancel your gym membership if you plan on getting that one, because you are gonna need to save your strength.

 

[Mike_E]

Money saved by buying something other than the Vll is money wasted.

It really is an amazing lens.

 

[RichieT]

I used the Sigma 70-200 2.8 on my D300 for indoor sports (mostly wrestling.) It was sharp, fast, and could use it wide open with no problems. I put the lens on my D800 and I'm pretty disappointed. Wide open it is soft and has noticeable CA. I have to step it down to at least 5.6 which defeats the purpose of fast glass. I'm now in the market for the VR II.

 

[Tailgunner]

I use a VR II for our son's sports and it rocks!

 

[DanielLewis76]

Thanks for the replies, as a matter of interest has anyone used the Sigma 120-300 f2.8? I have ordered the 70-200 but also liked the look of the Sigma...

 

[vipgraphx]

3 Points:


3) Depending on how far of reach you will need, when you switch to D800 with the 70-200mm, you may not have enough reach without the crop factor working in your favour.

YOu know you can crop down in the D800 get the same crop factor and will be about 24mp which will still give you that reach and 24 mp is enough mp to enlarge photos....

ahh ok. It was more the f2.8 that made me think it would be good for indoor sports.

Hmm.. so many choices!

Thanks for all your replies.

I have owned that exact lens and it does great indoor and outdoor.

However my getting this lens will not make you get better pictures straight out the box, You really need to understand how to use it and adjust your camera correctly to gain the benefits of this beast! I will admit that my lack of experience when I got this lens made it very challanging to use. I thought could just spend a crap load of money on a lens and that I would get those professional results,,,NOPE I was wrong! I missed so many shots because I could not get my camera settings correct. After a while I started to realize that for indoor shots you can not be afraid to bump up the ISO. You need super fast shutter speed, correct ISO to get stop motion sharp pictures but to add to that if you zoom you also need to raise the F because if you have this lens at 2.8 zoomed it will be soft and have a very shallow DOF. So you would need to adjust F to like 3.5-4.5 raise your ISO ,adjust exposure comp and dial in your shutter speed. Things I did not realize when I first got it.

Jared Pollin ( I think thats how you spell it) at frowknowsphoto.com has some good videos about using this lens. He mentioned he would rather have some film grain and keep his images sharp than to miss a shot because he was afraid to bump up ISO...check out his videos.


You may be disappointed on the reach you get once you switch to full frame, I was, I used it on a d7000 and was so impressed then I got a D700 and was bummed out because I did not have that same reach (crop factor) and was thinking to get an adapter to get that reach back but, I never did.

Good luck!

 

[bc_steve]

yep, a blurry shot is more or less useless. A bit of noise is always preferable.

 

[Mike_E]

I'm sorry, I just reread your opening post and I failed to answer your question properly.

You already have the lenses that you need. What you really need is another camera body so that you can have two lenses ready to go at any one time. Say the 35mm on one and the 70-200mm VR on the other.

That combo should get you 99% of what you need indoors.

 

[DanielLewis76]

I know what you saying. The shot below of two of my students was taken at 1/640 ISO 3200 but at about f5 due to the lens being zoomed on a f3.5 - f5.6. Its a grainy shot but would have been much worse if either slow shutter or lower ISO.

My main aim is be to be able to take shots at a lower iso where possible.

 

[sifelaver]

I like the (newest version) Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 on DX.

 

[robbins.photo]

I am looking to get a new zoom lens for my Nikon D5200 to mainly take indoor photos of sports, martial arts etc. I currently have a 35mm 1.8g, 85mm 1.8g and the 18-200 VR but none of these really allow me to get all the shots I want/need without changing lenses and missing the action.

Therefore I am looking to get something like the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII. Is this a good lens (reviews look ok) or is there a better lens for the same money or less?

Is there a better lens out there? I'd say no - from everything I've read it's pretty much the top of the line in 70-200 mm F/2.8. As for me my budget was pretty limited so I ended up with a Sigma F/2.8 70-200 mm, and I'm happy as a clam with it. But if you have the budget you won't do any better than the Nikkor.

 

[matthewo]

That new sigma 120-300 is pretty nice, if you need a little more reach it could be a better option than the 70-200. Its heavy tho

 

[robbins.photo]

That new sigma 120-300 is pretty nice, if you need a little more reach it could be a better option than the 70-200. Its heavy tho

Well I got the 200 mm for around $700 with OS, so just couldn't pass that up. So far the 200 mm is getting the job done nicely, most likely my next lens will either be a 150-500 mm or maybe the new Tamron 150-600 mm depending on the reviews it gets.