Nikon 70-300mm VR II or Tokina 80-200mm 2.8?

[nickzou]

So I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my Nikon 70-300mm. It gets soft near 300mm and no matter how much I play with the AF fine tune it just doesn't seem to want to be sharp at that focal length. Plus, it isn't not a very fast lens. BUT it does have VR and I think that's pretty useful. I've found a couple of Tokina 80-200mm f2.8's on eBay for around a comparable price. No image stabilization but I'm assuming this is supposed to be a "pro" lens because of its fast aperture. What would you guys do? Keep the VR lens or sell it and get an older but faster lens?

 

[Dillard]

Tamron and Sigma both make a 70-200 f2.8 that gets pretty good reviews

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'm in a similar dilema, I am thinking of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I've decided to stay put with the Nikon for now.. I think anyway!

The Tammy appears to be a beast in terms of IQ.

 

[MLeeK]

Look for a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 used. They are a much loved lens and can be found for a good price.
From what I am seeing on the Tokina it's a dog to focus and has major chromatic aberration. There have evidently been some issues with it and back and front focusing to which Tokina has responded that it's not designed to be used on a Dslr, but a film camera. I have no idea why that would be different, but that's their story and they're sticking to it.
The tamron is a budget option. It's slow on the focus, but it is sharp and a very well rounded lens for the price.

 

[nickzou]

I'm in a similar dilema, I am thinking of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I've decided to stay put with the Nikon for now.. I think anyway!

The Tammy appears to be a beast in terms of IQ.

Better than the Sigma? Because I wasn't impressed with the Sigma at f2.8.

 

[Derrel]

I'm in a similar dilema, I am thinking of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I've decided to stay put with the Nikon for now.. I think anyway!

The Tammy appears to be a beast in terms of IQ.

Better than the Sigma? Because I wasn't impressed with the Sigma at f2.8.

I have never seen test images from a third-party 70-200 or 80-200 that were "impressive" when the lens was shot at f/2.8. In fact, my basic characterization of third-party, $700-$1200 zoom lenses in this category is "not good wide-open", or "decidedly soft wide open". There's a reason Sigma was making 70-200 f/2.8 lenses six years ago, priced at $1,000 lower than comparably-spec'd Canon L-series and Nikon VR-G series lenses...because there are serious design compromises made in order to keep the prices low...either on focus speed, or close-range performance, or flatness of field, or just-slightly-inferior optics,etc,etc. Tokina has been aiming for low-priced knock-off lenses for almost a decade now,competing mostly on build quality and price point.

One needs to read reviews pretty carefully...the Tokina 80-200/2.8 AT-X Pro from what I saw in one review was indeed, as MleeK said, filled with CA. It's an older design that does pre-date digital SLR capture optimization; the thing about a zoom designed for a crop-frame sensor is that the lens needs to have VERY HIGH level optical performance over a small field area, like Nikon's 70-200 VR 1 model had; it was notably better than Canon's 70-200 2.8 L IS USM on APS-C, but the Canon, being years older, was MUCH better across a wider imaging area AKA film or FF. So, Nikon had to re-design a new 70-200, a Mark II version. Canon re-designed it's 70-200 IS USM to a Mark II designation. The Tokina is now what one might say "four or five" generations behind in mechanical technology,and three or four behind in optical design...

I dunno...when a guy looks at a lens that need to be stopped down to f/8 to equalize centers and corners and get away from color fringing....ehhh...even $700 seems like WASTED money to me.

 

[MLeeK]

Which sigma?
All lenses are sharper stopped down and are at their sharpest about two stops down from wide open. My sigma is pretty impressive at f/2.8 and just about amazing at 5.6 but I have the OS version-not the original.
Same for my tamron, It's sharp wide open, but better stopped down to about 5.6. My sigma is sharper.

 

[Derrel]

Sigma has made what is it now? Is it FOUR different 70-200 f/2.8 models???

 

[nickzou]

Which sigma?
All lenses are sharper stopped down and are at their sharpest about two stops down from wide open. My sigma is pretty impressive at f/2.8 and just about amazing at 5.6 but I have the OS version-not the original.
Same for my tamron, It's sharp wide open, but better stopped down to about 5.6. My sigma is sharper.

This one lol:




And to be clear, I'm not just going by the comparison in the video. The Sigma looks sufficiently sharp at 200mm in some of the shots. But sometimes it just still looks like it is out of focus.

This my Nikon 50mm at f/1.4. It's still kinda hazy but it is sufficiently "sharp", it doesn't look like I missed the focus.

This is my Tokina 20-35mm at 35mm f/2.8. Same thing, after twittling around with the AF tune on my camera I got it to the point where I think this lens is sufficiently sharp wide open.

I fully understand that if I stopped these lenses down that they will be sharper, but at their maximum apertures, I don't think these are too bad. In your opinion is the Sigma at 2.8 comparatively (to my two examples) sharp? If so, then it is probably good enough for me.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Nikon 70-200 VRII and don't look back

 

[nickzou]

Great I can sell my 70-300mm and I'll still be short 2000 bucks.

 

[Ballistics]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53312364@N00/sets/72157623791809502/detail/

D90 and a sigma 70-200mm. Most of these are shot @ 2.8. I'm impressed, but maybe my standards aren't as high as most.

 

[nickzou]

Yeah I've been staring at the test shots on dpreview as well. The thing about flickr, or at least that person's flickr is the largest resolution isn't nearly large enough to tell if the image is sharp or not. The ones are dpreview are. Quite honestly I am impressed with the shots from the Sigma. Still I think the Nikons are sharper, but not by nearly as much as I remembered. At this point it might just be the placebo effect, I'm not sure if I can tell the difference. If I'm questioning my eyes and can't really come to a conclusive judgement as to which is actually sharper, I don't think I can justify a lens that is a 1000 dollars more just for a slight edge in sharpness with may very well just be all in my mind.

 

[Ballistics]

It's also a matter of $2200 vs $700. The shots are 9x7 or larger on my screen and they are sharp at 2.8. If you are going to blow it up to the 200%+ and are really going to split hairs, then get the Nikon.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

My First Shoot with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 « Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More

Check this out.. a real world test on a Tamron 70-200 against a Nikon 70-200 2.8.