Kicking around some ideas pertaining to 70-200mm

Nikon_Dude · Jun 29, 2011

Ok, so I want to get one of these lenses.

The nikon 70-200 vrI/II does not look to be affordable in the near future.

This leaves me with the options of the Sigma, the Tamron, OR the Nikon 80-200mm along with a body upgrade to be able to autofocus.

I own the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and am very happy with the image quality, but I noticed that the autofocus is substantially slower in low light situations than my 35mm f1.8. From what I've gathered reading online, people seem to say the Sigma 70-200 focuses faster than the Tamron. My question is this. Can I expect any of the zooms to have fast of a focus as the prime lens? If so, I'm assuming it would be the Nikon 70-200 since it uses the AF-S system. How would that compare to either the sigma or tamron, as well as to the 80-200mm lens mounted on a body with a built in autofocus motor?

Also any other input on either of the three lenses from people that have experience with them is appreciated.

orb9220 · Jun 29, 2011

None are going to focus as fast as the little primes. Less Lightweight Glass less distance to travel for focus for the smaller primes.

As to longer zooms. Yes the tamron's are the slowest of the bunch. Tho they have come out with a Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD. That has upped their AF speed with the new USD Ultrasonic Silent Drive. But haven't seen it put in other zooms yet?

As to the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D there are like 3 versions of the one ring push pull and was consider the slowest of the series. With 2 two-ring newer versions being noticeably faster and the limited production AF-S version of this AF-D being as fast as the 70-200 f2.8 VR. The Sigma is plenty fast and very close to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 Vr.

But also in consideration is Cam Body used. A D300 is going to drive glass a tad faster than a D90. A D90 will drive a smidgin faster than a D80. Don't know how well or faster a D7000 is over the D90 or D300.

For me cash the Main driving force on choice than probably the cheapest is the one-ring push-pull Nikon. Then Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM or used Two-ring Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D toss up second choice. Depending on need for AF speed then the Sigma. Rugged Bang around Build the Nikon.

But if at all possible would get it done right and address all the issues and just go with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR Version 1 used can be had in the $1300-$1600 range. And add a 1.4x or 1.7x to cover all my eventual needs.
.

Rkee · Jun 29, 2011

thanks for the post I too am looking at the 80-200 Nikon for that reason

orb9220 · Jun 29, 2011

Yep had to sell my awhile back for medical bills.
But Her Name was "Big Bertha" and I loved Her!

My Gal "Bertha" by Orbmiser, on Flickr

And was Sad when She Left Me

.

D-B-J · Jun 29, 2011

I LOVE my 80-200 AF-D 2 ring lens (same lens as big bertha). It's a great lens!

EPPhoto · Jun 29, 2011

D-B-J said:
I LOVE my 80-200 AF-D 2 ring lens (same lens as big bertha). It's a great lens!

Agree 100%!! I love my 80-200 2 ring!! One of my favorite lenses. I got a killer deal on eBay and paid $690 shipped and it was MINTy fresh lol.

adversus · Jun 29, 2011

The 80-200 doesn't have VR does it? How well did you guys handle the 80-200 to compensate for no VR? I'm also looking at getting a 2.8 tele, but I was looking at the Sigma w/ built in optical stabilization (OS, their version of Nikon VR).

D-B-J · Jun 29, 2011

adversus said:
The 80-200 doesn't have VR does it? How well did you guys handle the 80-200 to compensate for no VR? I'm also looking at getting a 2.8 tele, but I was looking at the Sigma w/ built in optical stabilization (OS, their version of Nikon VR).

Never felt a need for it. Most of the time i am using the 2.8 for a shallow depth of field, and not for low light. But that's just me. And if i am using it for low light, i just bump up my ISO a little, and there you go, that compensates for the lack of VR.

2WheelPhoto · Jun 29, 2011

Get the 70-200 VRII and be done with it.

I just bought a 24-70mm F/2.8. I lost a lot of sleep over the "right lens/cost", and now I sleep good even though my wallet lost some major weight. I'll have the 70-200 soon, after I return from a trip and start photo certification school.

coldmm803 · Jun 29, 2011

I am in the same boat but plan on going with the Sigma with OS due to cost.
Something else to consider is the magnification, the Tamron is a macro lens and has a greater magnification (0.32x) than the Nikon (0.25x) but the Sigma (0.125x) is a bit less. I'd rather go from the Sigma to the Nikon and gain magnification than loose it.
Also, I could be wrong but I think that only 1 version of the Nikon 80-200 works with Nikon teleconverters and it is not the version currently sold. If you never think you'll need/use one than it is less of an issue

orb9220 · Jun 30, 2011

True that the current Nikon teleconverters do not work with the AF-D lenses tho older teleconverters do or the Tamron,Sigma and Kenko do!. Had the Tamron 1.4x that worked fine with AF.
.

Nikon_Dude · Jun 30, 2011

orb9220 said:
None are going to focus as fast as the little primes. Less Lightweight Glass less distance to travel for focus for the smaller primes.

As to longer zooms. Yes the tamron's are the slowest of the bunch. Tho they have come out with a Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD. That has upped their AF speed with the new USD Ultrasonic Silent Drive. But haven't seen it put in other zooms yet?

As to the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D there are like 3 versions of the one ring push pull and was consider the slowest of the series. With 2 two-ring newer versions being noticeably faster and the limited production AF-S version of this AF-D being as fast as the 70-200 f2.8 VR. The Sigma is plenty fast and very close to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 Vr.

But also in consideration is Cam Body used. A D300 is going to drive glass a tad faster than a D90. A D90 will drive a smidgin faster than a D80. Don't know how well or faster a D7000 is over the D90 or D300.

For me cash the Main driving force on choice than probably the cheapest is the one-ring push-pull Nikon. Then Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM or used Two-ring Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D toss up second choice. Depending on need for AF speed then the Sigma. Rugged Bang around Build the Nikon.

But if at all possible would get it done right and address all the issues and just go with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR Version 1 used can be had in the $1300-$1600 range. And add a 1.4x or 1.7x to cover all my eventual needs.
.

An AF-S 80-200mm is news to me. I was not aware they made one. I'll keep my eye out for one of these. The only issue with the non AF-S for me is I would first need to upgrade my body.