I need a bit of help deciding between Lensi

[Pine]

Ever since delving into the hobby of photography I found I haven't had as much spare cash laying around. What can I say? It's a rich man's hobby, and I'm a fairly poor man .
Since getting my D3100 in December (The 31st!), I've very recently acquired a used 35mm F/1.8G AF-S prime. Absolutely great lens, the difference between it and the kit lens really shows. I've sold my 18-55 kit lens since then.

I'm a high school student and I've about $300 laying around. I can salvage maybe another $100. I've applied to a couple part-time jobs, and I'm awaiting response. Now that I've got a taste for lensi, I want more.

I've been itching for a telephoto as of late, and as such, I've been looking at a few. I've landed on the Nikon 70-300mm F/4.5~5.6 VR ($480, new, eBay) and the Tamron 70-300mm VC (Tamron VR) F/4~5.6 ($440, new, eBay, said to be better than the Nikon). If I land a job, I'd like to go a little further and maybe go for a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 II. I can get it used off Kijiji/Craigs for about $700, and used from Henry's on eBay w/ a 90 day warranty (2 years extension for about $40)for $700 ($600 plus tax and shipping). It's an extremely intriguing lens, but I'm weary of the lack of OS (Sigma's VR). I'm thinking that might be fine though, because I'll be shooting, for the most part, wide open and in broad daylight. For low light indoor shooting I've got my 35mm prime, which should probably suffice.

tl;dr: Nikon 70-300 VR 4.5~5.6 vs Tamron 70-300 VC 4~5.6 vs Sigma 70-200 2.8 II

Does anybody have any advice? As of now, I've got just about over nine thousand tabs open and my head's spinning.

Any help is greatly appreciated

 

[djacobox372]

You might consider trading your D3100 in for a D90. That way you can consider all the AF options. It's far easier to get pro-quality glass on a budget with a AF compatible camera.

The nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D for example can be had used in great condition for as low as $400--it's optics are superior to the sigma and just as good as the latest nikon 70-200mm vr2.

 

[ulrichsd]

You might consider trading your D3100 in for a D90. That way you can consider all the AF options. It's far easier to get pro-quality glass on a budget with a AF compatible camera.

The nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D for example can be had used in great condition for as low as $400--it's optics are superior to the sigma and just as good as the latest nikon 70-200mm vr2.

I've been watching Ebay and the 80-200mm 2.8 ED (zoom ring version) goes for around $850. Maybe the old push/pull zoom version goes for less, but I've heard the autofocus is s...l...o...w... which is a deal breaker if you are looking to use it for indoor sports / low-light action.

 

[Pine]

As for upgrading, I've thought about it. However I love the simplicity and functionality of my D3100. Getting both the 80-200 and upgrading to a D90 at current prices is really way out of my budget (The Sigma alone being quite a stretch, but if I really want it I'll end up with it ;-)).

I'm definitely looking for fast autofocus. I hate losing that one brilliant shot because of slow autofocus.

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

I say hold off on getting the 70-300 in any flavor. If your really itching to get a good 70-200 from Nikon or the others. Your going to have that 70-300 sitting in your hands going, if I had just waited. You need to fight the "I have to have it now". And just hold of a little longer. The Tamron 70-200 is not such a slouch either from reviews. Take that money out of that pocket that is buring and put it some place safe. Then get you PT job and save up for the lens you really want! For people on a budget it is not that good to buy something cheaper when you know your going to get the other later. By buying the 70-300 you are just making yourself start from scratch money wise. Right now you might be 1/3 to 1/2 there. Just keep banking that cash until you can get what you want. You want the better ones, so wait for them!

 

[ulrichsd]

I say hold off on getting the 70-300 in any flavor. If your really itching to get a good 70-200 from Nikon or the others. Your going to have that 70-300 sitting in your hands going, if I had just waited. You need to fight the "I have to have it now". And just hold of a little longer. The Tamron 70-200 is not such a slouch either from reviews. Take that money out of that pocket that is buring and put it some place safe. Then get you PT job and save up for the lens you really want! For people on a budget it is not that good to buy something cheaper when you know your going to get the other later. By buying the 70-300 you are just making yourself start from scratch money wise. Right now you might be 1/3 to 1/2 there. Just keep banking that cash until you can get what you want. You want the better ones, so wait for them!

I'm not sure it is fair to compare the 70-300 4.5-5.6 to the 70-200 2.8... I have the 70-300 and while I'd love to have the 70-200 also, I wouldn't have to lug it around with me if I'm going to be shooting outside in full sunlight, just too big and heavy.

 

[Pine]

I've experienced buyers remorse a time too many, and it's not very fun at all. I think I should save up and go for the Sigma after all. I'm alright with lugging things around. Afterall, the bigger your lens, the more professional you are (Or look, at least to the layman's eye ).

 

[djacobox372]

You might consider trading your D3100 in for a D90. That way you can consider all the AF options. It's far easier to get pro-quality glass on a budget with a AF compatible camera.

The nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D for example can be had used in great condition for as low as $400--it's optics are superior to the sigma and just as good as the latest nikon 70-200mm vr2.

I've been watching Ebay and the 80-200mm 2.8 ED (zoom ring version) goes for around $850. Maybe the old push/pull zoom version goes for less, but I've heard the autofocus is s...l...o...w... which is a deal breaker if you are looking to use it for indoor sports / low-light action.

Keep watching-- the two ring often sells for as loe as $600--$850 can win you a af-s version (I got my 80-200mm afs for less then that)

The single ring sells for between $350 and $500-- I used one for years, it's only a little slower focusing then the dual ring--great for someone on a budget

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

You might consider trading your D3100 in for a D90. That way you can consider all the AF options. It's far easier to get pro-quality glass on a budget with a AF compatible camera.

The nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D for example can be had used in great condition for as low as $400--it's optics are superior to the sigma and just as good as the latest nikon 70-200mm vr2.

I've been watching Ebay and the 80-200mm 2.8 ED (zoom ring version) goes for around $850. Maybe the old push/pull zoom version goes for less, but I've heard the autofocus is s...l...o...w... which is a deal breaker if you are looking to use it for indoor sports / low-light action.

Keep watching-- the two ring often sells for as loe as $600--$850 can win you a af-s version (I got my 80-200mm afs for less then that)

The single ring sells for between $350 and $500-- I used one for years, it's only a little slower focusing then the dual ring--great for someone on a budget

He has a D3100 so the only 80-200 he can use with AF operational is the AF-S version. Single ring or Two ring AF speed would not matter to him.

 

[Pine]

I've actually decided I probably don't want the Sigma. While it's built well and focuses very nicely, I just don't like how it gets softer wide open at 200mm. That's going to be a highly used focal length for me.
Getting $1400 for a 70-200 F/2.8 VR I is a bit unreasonable. I' think the 80-200 AF-S might be the one I might need, but they sell for $900 and up. That's still quite a bit of money, and at that point maybe I should just go for the VR.
The thing is, I don't know how useful VR will be. It might possibly invaluable, and I'm a bit weary of shooting an 80-200 without VR.

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

See how your part time job goes. What your making from that. If you find that its going to be a long while to get a 70-200 AF-S VR. The better lenses like the 80-200 AF-S will hold its used value better than a 70-300. So you could probably sell the 80-200 AF-S for about 80% if not more of your purchase price (if you get a decent deal). So, you could possibly pick up the 80-200 AF-S and use it for a year. While saving up more for the 70-200AF-S VR. That way your not waiting 2 years to get a lens. And in the mean time have a very good performing lens until you can pick up the better one. The 80-200 is nothing to over look though performance wise. Its a very good lens. You just might find you are satisfied with it, and not need to go with the 70-200 so soon.

 

[Pine]

I'm looking at the 80-200 AF-S on eBay now. There aren't a lot of 'em, but there are a couple that are going for a bit over a thousand. There are a few auctions around $800. I think I just may pick up an 80-200 and then upgrade to the 70-200 for VR later on, like you said. Thanks for the help

 

[revid]

hey guys just reading your posts and right of the bat I got to say Iam a newbie to this .The question I have is why would you buy a 80-200mm over a 70-300mm or 70-200mm ?Don't you have more focal range with the latter?And again Iam only asking because I want to know and I don't quite understand the numbers well enough.

 

[molested_cow1]

For the money you have, may be you should consider older lens instead, like ED AF 70~300mm. It's non-vr, but is much more affordable than the new ones. You should use the left over dollars for a decent tripod.

Used lens are also better bang for the buck if they are in good condition.

 

[revid]

dont know if the last post was towards me but anyway thanks but I have a real good tripod.lol