Nikon ED AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G or tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 sp di vc

[Rip101]

Hi Guys, I was wondering if I could get some help deciding here.

I have an Opportunity to get my hands on a Nikon ED AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G
1st generation along with a Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x Teleconverter, for about $1200.00 second hand in very good condition.

What are your opinions on this or a brand new tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 sp di vc.

This will be used on a D600.

Thanks

 

[PaulWog]

Hi Guys, I was wondering if I could get some help deciding here.

I have an Opportunity to get my hands on a Nikon ED AF-S VR-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G
1st generation along with a Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x Teleconverter, for about $1200.00 second hand in very good condition.

What are your opinions on this or a brand new tamron 70-200mm f 2.8 sp di vc.
This will be used on a D600.
Thanks

That's a lot of value for $1200. If the condition is truly good, based on my past research, I'd go with the VR1 Nikon. The fact that you get that teleconverter in the deal just sweetens everything a little more. The Tamron is by no means a bad lens though. And it is new, so that is something to consider.

If you're considering spending $1500 on the Tamron, I'd say just go for the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII brand new. The resale value on that thing is going to be insane, so it's not like you're losing your money once you get it (so long as you don't break it!).

I saw your post in another forum when I googled some more information up. It sounds like you're really torn on the matter, and you really want to maximize your dollar. That's why I think the best is the way to go, especially since you're spending quite a lot already. In the case of a 70-200 VRII, if you become short on funds or ever feel you need less, you can always resell the thing.

 

[Tailgunner]

My vote is for the Nikon 70-200 VRI & TC 17

 

[Derrel]

BUY THE NIKKOR with the CONVERTER....NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that it has the 1.7x seals the deal, totally!

 

[Rip101]

BUY THE NIKKOR with the CONVERTER....NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that it has the 1.7x seals the deal, totally!

I have been reading that this particuler has been known to cause vignetting on a fx body.
Any comments on that?
Thank You all for your help.

 

[Tailgunner]

BUY THE NIKKOR with the CONVERTER....NOW!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that it has the 1.7x seals the deal, totally!

I have been reading that this particuler has been known to cause vignetting on a fx body.
Any comments on that?
Thank You all for your help.

The lens or the TC?

I'm guessing you're talking about the TC? The Nikon 70-200 VR I sells for $1200-1400. So you're getting the TC for free. If it doesn't work, sell/trade it for one that does work. I already have a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR II and I would buy this no questions. Then I would sell the 70-200mm VR I for $1200 and keep the TC for my self.

 

[Rip101]

I'm refer to the 70-200on a fx body.

I hear that there is nothing better on a dx, but has some vignetting on fx.
I have aso read that the fix for this is the 1.7 teleconverter.

 

[sleist]

The VR1 vignettes in FX, but it is corrected nicely (for me using a D700) using Capture NX2.
Despite that, the corners are still not great. This does not impact my style of shooting (I actually like it), but it may be a deal breaker for someone else.
The VR2 fixes this, but at a significant cost.

I have not heard that the TC 1.7 fixes this, but if that is true it will be at a cost to speed and sharpness.
Pick your poison.

 

[480sparky]

How about a link to this vignette stuff so we can read it first-hand?

 

[Rip101]

How about a link to this vignette stuff so we can read it first-hand?

I have been reading about this in Amazon and BH Customer review page.

 

[sleist]

From SLR Gear Review:

Shading (''Vignetting'')
With the 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 VR mounted on the sub-frame D200, corner shading isn't much of an issue - in fact, the only time it's noticeable at all is at 200mm, where the corners are a quarter-stop darker than the center. At any other focal length / aperture setting, there's no appreciable light falloff.
Mounted on the full-frame D700 however, corner shading is much more prominent. The worst case scenario is any focal length over 70mm at ƒ/2.8, where the corners are over a full-stop darker than the center. At 70mm and ƒ/2.8, this light falloff is around 3/4 of a stop. Stopping down reduces the amount of light falloff; at ƒ/4, light falloff is around 2/3 of a stop in the corners, between 80-200mm; at ƒ/5.6, it's around 1/3 of a stop. At 70mm, light falloff isn't much of an issue at ƒ/5.6 or smaller. For any focal length other than 70mm, to get images without any appreciable corner shading, you'll need to stop down to at least ƒ/8, if not ƒ/11.

More or less matches my experience.
Vignetting is corrected easily, but corners are still soft.

 

[480sparky]

From SLR Gear Review:

Shading (''Vignetting'')
With the 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 VR mounted on the sub-frame D200, corner shading isn't much of an issue - in fact, the only time it's noticeable at all is at 200mm, where the corners are a quarter-stop darker than the center. At any other focal length / aperture setting, there's no appreciable light falloff.
Mounted on the full-frame D700 however, corner shading is much more prominent. The worst case scenario is any focal length over 70mm at ƒ/2.8, where the corners are over a full-stop darker than the center. At 70mm and ƒ/2.8, this light falloff is around 3/4 of a stop. Stopping down reduces the amount of light falloff; at ƒ/4, light falloff is around 2/3 of a stop in the corners, between 80-200mm; at ƒ/5.6, it's around 1/3 of a stop. At 70mm, light falloff isn't much of an issue at ƒ/5.6 or smaller. For any focal length other than 70mm, to get images without any appreciable corner shading, you'll need to stop down to at least ƒ/8, if not ƒ/11.

More or less matches my experience.
Vignetting is corrected easily, but corners are still soft.

And, how much does this differ from any other lens?

 

[sleist]

From SLR Gear Review:

Shading (''Vignetting'')
With the 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 VR mounted on the sub-frame D200, corner shading isn't much of an issue - in fact, the only time it's noticeable at all is at 200mm, where the corners are a quarter-stop darker than the center. At any other focal length / aperture setting, there's no appreciable light falloff.
Mounted on the full-frame D700 however, corner shading is much more prominent. The worst case scenario is any focal length over 70mm at ƒ/2.8, where the corners are over a full-stop darker than the center. At 70mm and ƒ/2.8, this light falloff is around 3/4 of a stop. Stopping down reduces the amount of light falloff; at ƒ/4, light falloff is around 2/3 of a stop in the corners, between 80-200mm; at ƒ/5.6, it's around 1/3 of a stop. At 70mm, light falloff isn't much of an issue at ƒ/5.6 or smaller. For any focal length other than 70mm, to get images without any appreciable corner shading, you'll need to stop down to at least ƒ/8, if not ƒ/11.

More or less matches my experience.
Vignetting is corrected easily, but corners are still soft.

And, how much does this differ from any other lens?

I don't know, nor do I care. My comparison was with the the VR2 which is better than the VR1 with respect to vignetting and corner sharpness.
Do you have a specific gripe with this statement or are you just in a mood to grind axes?

I gave an honest opinion based on personal experience with the lens in question. For some reason you seem to have a problem with that.

 

[480sparky]

I don't know, nor do I care. My comparison was with the the VR2 which is better than the VR1 with respect to vignetting and corner sharpness.
Do you have a specific gripe with this statement or are you just in a mood to grind axes?

I gave an honest opinion based on personal experience with the lens in question. For some reason you seem to have a problem with that.

Wow. Did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning?

All I asked is how much this specific lens' vignetting differs from others (given the fact that all lenses do). Is it twice a much, half again as much, not much more?

 

[sleist]

I don't know, nor do I care. My comparison was with the the VR2 which is better than the VR1 with respect to vignetting and corner sharpness.
Do you have a specific gripe with this statement or are you just in a mood to grind axes?

I gave an honest opinion based on personal experience with the lens in question. For some reason you seem to have a problem with that.

Wow. Did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning?

If I misinterpreted your tone I apologize.

All I asked is how much this specific lens' vignetting differs from others (given the fact that all lenses do). Is it twice a much, half again as much, not much more?

I answered this already:

I don't know, nor do I care. My comparison was with the the VR2 which is better than the VR1 with respect to vignetting and corner sharpness.

I'm sure someone somewhere has quantified the variance. I have not.
When I rented the VR2 to see if it might be worth the cost of upgrading, the difference was noticeable, but I chose to stick with the VR1.
Others have come to the opposite conclusion.