High Quality 70-200 for D810

[kdthomas]

I've been thinking about the 70-200 VRII for my D810. I've generally heard --and it seems to make sense -- to have a wide zoom, a couple of fast primes, and a tele zoom for being a working (or at least serious) photographer. I want to get into portraits, events, weddings, and yes still looking toward stock ...

I've heard good thing about this lens, but would like input from you guys as to this line of reasoning as well as other lens options. I generally feel more comfortable staying with camera brand lenses, but that's based on intuition and not anything I can point to.

 

[nerwin]

You should consider renting the 70-200 2.8 VRII for a week and see how you like it. I know a lot of portrait/wedding photographers love this lens, I don't think you can go wrong. I really want one, but Nikon's is too pricey for me which is why I'm considering getting the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS instead.

 

[480sparky]

Instead of following someone else's 'list' of lenses, follow your own path. Once you start shooting things, which lenses you should get will become clear. As suggested, renting is a great idea. It's a great way to try before you buy.

 

[pixmedic]

the 70-200 is generally considered a "must have" for wedding photographers.
I dont know if I would go so far as to say "must have", because I know photographers that do weddings with just prime lenses, but I will say that we have the Tamron version and love it. It is probably our most frequently used lens for weddings/receptions and such. It is a very versatile focal range, great when you have to do a lot of moving around.

that being said, if you cant, or dont want, to fork out the $$$ for the Nikon VRII version, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Tamron or Sigma offerings. we have had nothing but good experiences with our Tamron (as have many who have it on the forum) and I have heard equally good reviews on the Sigma.

 

[Braineack]

The Tamron is sharp as tits.

 

[D-B-J]

The Tamron is sharp as tits.

AND saves you an entire grand, which can be used for something like a sigma 35 or 50 art, or a tripod, or accessories, or flash unites, or anything.

Style by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Tamron 70-200 2.8VC... it's sharp.

Jake

 

[Derrel]

Nikkor
Full-size sample photos from Nikon 70-200mm F 2.8
Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR II review Cameralabs

Tamron
Full-size sample photos from Tamron 70-200mm F 2.8
Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 VC review Cameralabs
Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 SP Di VC USD Lens Review

You'd probably like a 70-200mm zoom lens. And a utility zoom lens. And a couple of fast primes. Those are staple tools among the major camera brands.

I think the full-sized sample images from PixelPeeper.com are interesting if you download enough of them, and then watch them in a slide show at full screen, you can get a pretty good mental picture of how a lens design "looks" over a wide range of situations, from a lot of different shooters. It will take a bit of work, since in this case, PixelPeepers does not segregate the 70-200 VR from the newer 70-200 VR-II lens, nor do they segregate the 70-200 Di from the newer 70-200 VC. You'll have to do that yourself.

Bok Atkins says the Tamron ".at a distance of 2m the effective focal length reduced to around 140mm, so the focus breathing is almost equally as bad as the VR-II Nikkor has.

 

[goodguy]

The Tamron is sharp as tits.

I like tits, and like the Tamron

 

[goodguy]

Its a must lens!!!

If money isnt an issue go with the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VRII, if money is an issue then the Tamron is pretty much as good as the Nikon and cost 1000$ less.
I own it and use it a lot, love this lens

 

[Braineack]

Bok Atkins says the Tamron ".at a distance of 2m the effective focal length reduced to around 140mm, so the focus breathing is almost equally as bad as the VR-II Nikkor has.

I'd wager that's about accurate. I just did a quick test against my 150-600 and when the 70-200 is focused to 4.3ft @ 200mm, the image is a bit smaller then the other lens at 150mm.

but then again, what are you shooting, at 5ft & 200mm, that a little extra reach might matter?

 

[Derrel]

Close-ups maybe? As in, using the lens at 200mm setting to try to get a close-up shot. But losing 60mm of focal length right off the top. It's just one of those things some people notice and take actual measurements of...it was a huge issue when the VR-II came out in 2009...it's only worth pointing out that the Tamron has the same problem/issue people always ***** about with the name brand lens.

I don't own either lens model, so it's not like I'm a fanboy trying to dismiss the facts or anything...

 

[Braineack]

at 3:00mm he tests the three. but i dunno if that's the VRI or VRII.

they all exhibit it pretty significantly at 200mm.

 

[Derrel]

Matt Granger's review is the Nikon VR-II...you can see that by the lack of focusing locking buttons on the barrel.

One can see the focusing distances and measured focal lengths here. This page has some side-by-side samples of both Nikon versions, at different distances, at both the short end, and the long end of the zoom.

70-200mm AF-S VR II Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Seems like from what I've read, the big loser is the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS lens, which reviews are not all that kindly to...

 

[ruifo]

Here's my samples from the D810 + Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f 2.8 Di VC USD - an album on Flickr

No way to go wrong.

 

[jaomul]

Is the half price, half weight 70-200mm f4 vr on your list?