Nikkor/Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or go prime 105 f/2.5?????????

AMOMENT · Nov 17, 2012

I have a 50mm Nikkor f/1.8 and a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8 I also have a Nikkor 55-300 mm f/4.6-5.6. I mostly shoot portraits of children/families both ourdoors and sometimes with studio lighting. Right now I am looking to sell my Nikkor 55-300mm because it is obviosuely not the best in low light conditions. I happen to love my 50mm prime and was wondering whether or not I should go 105mm prime or the Sigma 80-200mm f/2.5? I need a lens to give me some space between my subject and I and i also want something with lower light capability and nice bokeh' and shallow DOF. I know primes are usually faster but I'm wondering if the Sigma 80-200 might be a little more useful.

Any thoughts? Do you have a preference and why?

I have gotten quite used to primes and do love them and don't mind positioning myself rather than my focal length. They also are much more economical. I'm looking to spend no more than $700 and I plan on buying used on e-bay or refurbished. I want a fast lens or at least modeately fast. I'm sure the prime is faster but perhaps the 80-200 is a bit more useful and fast enough?

Bitter Jeweler · Nov 17, 2012

Well, speak of the devil!

Hey, AMOMENT, how ya doin'?

fjrabon · Nov 17, 2012

the 80-200 f/2.8 is such a staple lens, most every photographer gets one at some point.

Missed seeing your pretty avatar around these parts. Especially just as you started to figure out your focus issues, haha.

fjrabon · Nov 17, 2012

Also, you can get a used Nikon 80-200 2 ing AF f/2.8 for around $700 if you look hard. That lens was at the time, the TOP OF THE LINE pro lens, and I actually still prefer it to Nikon's current flaghsip 70-200 f/.28 IS II lens. You have a D7000, right? It will focus the 80-200, which is the big reason why the 80-200 is cheaper, combined with not having VR.

MLeeK · Nov 17, 2012

Fast as in f/2.8?
I think my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is sharper than the Sigma non OS version of the lens.
Nikon shooters seem to really love that older 80-200 and if you can pick that up in the same price range that's what I'd probably do.

fjrabon · Nov 17, 2012

The push-pull variant of the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is also super sharp. it's only downside is that it's a bit slow to focus, but if you're not shooting sports, that's not a big deal. You can find those used for around $500 or less.

AMOMENT · Nov 17, 2012

Thanks guys...yeah didn't ditch me yet. I've been shooting and practicing a lot. Hope You guys are well!!! So I actually found a push/pull Nikkor 80-200 for a little over $500 and ALMOST picked it up. However, the salesman said it was a great lens but not super fast. Obviousely I'm not shooting cars racing at hundreds of miles per hour or football players racing down the field, but, as you guys know

....I sometimes struggle with focus and so having a fast enough lens is key for me.

I'll post some pics soon and you can let me know how my progress has been. I actually miss you guys and think of you often. We got hit pretty hard with Sandy and were out of commission for a while.

fjrabon · Nov 17, 2012

AMOMENT said:
Thanks guys...yeah didn't ditch me yet. I've been shooting and practicing a lot. Hope You guys are well!!! So I actually found a push/pull Nikkor 80-200 for a little over $500 and ALMOST picked it up. However, the salesman said it was a great lens but not super fast. Obviousely I'm not shooting cars racing at hundreds of miles per hour or football players racing down the field, but, as you guys know ....I sometimes struggle with focus and so having a fast enough lens is key for me.

I'll post some pics soon and you can let me know how my progress has been. I actually miss you guys and think of you often. We got hit pretty hard with Sandy and were out of commission for a while.

Well, there are two definitions of 'fast' when it coms to lenses. 1 is lets in a lot of light, and thus allows you to shoot at fast shutter speeds. All f/2.8 lenses are the same speed in that sense.

The second is how quickly it changes focus. That has nothing to do with missing focus, that has to do with waiting for your camera to focus the lens. The push pull is a bit slow in that regard, but for kids it's probably fine. Sports action is about the only place I think it's not fast enough.

MLeeK · Nov 18, 2012

AMOMENT said:
Thanks guys...yeah didn't ditch me yet. I've been shooting and practicing a lot. Hope You guys are well!!! So I actually found a push/pull Nikkor 80-200 for a little over $500 and ALMOST picked it up. However, the salesman said it was a great lens but not super fast. Obviousely I'm not shooting cars racing at hundreds of miles per hour or football players racing down the field, but, as you guys know ....I sometimes struggle with focus and so having a fast enough lens is key for me.

I'll post some pics soon and you can let me know how my progress has been. I actually miss you guys and think of you often. We got hit pretty hard with Sandy and were out of commission for a while.

Pick it up! He's talking in reference to race cars and sports. And the lens will work for that, just not as well as others. If you regret it-that one holds it's value among nikon shooters and you can sell it in a snap. I REALLY doubt you'll sell

fjrabon · Nov 18, 2012

$500 for a push/pull is slightly on the high side though. They can usually be found on ebay for around $300-$400 if you look hard enough.

Derrel · Nov 18, 2012

I would say buy a zoom and not a prime 105mm lens...the zoom has more focal length flexibility than the prime lens, which is very useful, especially indoors, or in relatively confined spaces, like say, outdoors on a patio or backyard deck, or even a small back yard. The 1.5x FOV factor makes it difficult to use a 105mm lens inside of 10 feet, except for tight, close-up-type photos. It's helpful to have more focal length options than "just" 105mm. The f/2.8 max aperture of the zoom is amply fast.

Solarflare · Nov 18, 2012

Some people only use a 135mm lens. Others only 50mm, 35mm, or 28mm. It really depends upon what your goal is.

Prime lenses give you compactness, large apertures, and brightness(*) and image quality. Zooms give you variance in focal length, obviously, but often also image stabilization and faster autofocus motors (unless we talk about the huge primes with the really long focal lengths). So its really a deal and there is no general answer to your question. Prime vs zoom is always a trade.

There is besides an Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR3 announced.

Nikon announces Nikon 1 V2, Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens, SB-N7 Speedlight | Nikon Rumors
Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens available for pre-order | Nikon Rumors
Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR vs. 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II specs comparison | Nikon Rumors
More Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR sample images | Nikon Rumors

(*) Thats because of less lens elements in a prime lens compared to a zoom, so on top of giving you more aperture, you often also get more light in general. But there are of course very complex prime lenses with many elements, and simple zooms with very few elements.