Sigma? Tamron? Nikkor? oh my??

[ababysean]

So, I'm sick of renting the 70-200 2.8 I need to get my hands on this lens in order for me to learn anything for more then a day, I need more then a month, I need monthS to learn how to use this lens.

So I'm looking to buy one.

Unless I am seeing it wrong, the Sigma and Tamron lens are under 800 dollars, while the Nikkor is 2200.
I can justify to my signif other 800 dollars, but I can't 2200 right now.

But the question is, is it worth it? am I basically going to be wasting 800 dollars?

Thanks for your opinions
Crystal

 

[FattyMcJ]

Unless I am seeing it wrong, the Sigma and Tamron lens are under 800 dollars, while the Nikkor is 2200.
I can justify to my signif other 800 dollars, but I can't 2200 right now.

But the question is, is it worth it? am I basically going to be wasting 800 dollars?

Thanks for your opinions
Crystal

Yep, you're seeing it wrong...or, should I say, missing something in there.

The big difference is VR (Nikon) or OS (Sigma term). Basically shake reduction in-lens.

The $800 Sigma & Tamron models DO NOT have it, while the $1600 Sigma and the $2200 Nikkor lenses DO have it.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens 2185 - B&H Photo
^Nikkor

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM f/NIKON 589306 - B&H Photo
^ Sigma lens WITH OS

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens 579-306 -
^Sigma lens WITHOUT OS

Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro AF Lens AF001NII-700 -
Tamron lens WITHOUT any form of VR or OS.

Another difference is the pseudo "macro" capability of the cheaper versions. The rear element was designed with close-focusing in mind (supposed to be 3 feet), vs. the more expensive versions with a minimum focusing distance of just under 5 feet. If you don't care about having that close of a focus distance, then it's worthless to you.

Now, personally, I have the Tamron and I like it. It's sharp enough, lighter than the OS versions of the lens from both manufacturers, and it was cheap. However, it's not as sharp as the Nikon version, and the VR is missed when using it at 200mm (on that rare occasion).

That being said, if I had the cash, I'd spring for the Nikkor with VR II. Or even the Nikkor with the original VR used (if you can find one...I haven't been so lucky).

The only real complaint I have with the Tamron 70-200 is the slow-ish focus speed. On my D300s it's not exactly cut out for sports, but it's plenty fast enough for anything else.

Just my $0.02

 

[tirediron]

You may want to consider the Nikkor 80-200; used, that can be had starting around $650. It doesn't have built in VR, but you can use the external version.

 

[ababysean]

I don't think the 80-200 will autofocus on my D3000.
But I might be interested in a D200+80/200 combo? that would still be within budget.

 

[tirediron]

I don't think the 80-200 will autofocus on my D3000.
But I might be interested in a D200+80/200 combo? that would still be within budget.

Ehh... I'd skip the D200. No, the 80-200 won't auto-focus on your body.

 

[KmH]

Ehh... I'd skip the D200. No, the 80-200 won't auto-focus on your body.

I wouldn't skip the D200 if it's replacing the D3000, or if the D3000 would be a backup camera.

 

[Destin]

Nikon made an 80-200 af-s lens, that would AF on your d3000.

That being said, I have the sigma 70-200 ($800 version). I love it, no complaints. If you want to see some sample photos, go to my site (link in my sig) and look at the 5k race, mountain bike race, and high school football and volleyball. Every one of the photos in those galleries has been taken with the sigma 70-200.

Sure, I'd rather have the nikon. But I don't have that kind of cash laying around, and the sigma is good enough for me.

 

[DirtyDFeckers]

I am a firm believer that you get what you pay for. Period.

 

[Derrel]

See if you can locate the first version 70-200 VR Nikkor. It's an excellent lens on APS-C sensor cameras, like your D3000. These are available used for a fair price. Un til you have an FX Nikon, you do not need the improved corner performance of the VR-II model, AND you'll get larger on-sensor images at close distances using the older lens!

 

[Geaux]

Hah, I'm in the same boat for Ultra Wide Angle lenses ... I've researched enough to not justify the extra money on Nikon. (d3000 here too)

 

[ababysean]

I can't find a used 70-200 2.8 VR I haha

I have been trying.

 

[Derrel]

I can't find a used 70-200 2.8 VR I haha

I have been trying.

KEH.com has 10 different used Nikon 70-200's version I lenses available, today. Plus one Mark-II model. Plus one beat up bargain-grade Sigma for $546.

Nikon Autofocus - KEH.com

 

[FattyMcJ]

KEH.com has 10 different used Nikon 70-200's version I lenses available, today. Plus one Mark-II model. Plus one beat up bargain-grade Sigma for $546.

Nikon Autofocus - KEH.com

Apparently my search skills suck donkey nards....I didn't find any on KEH a few weeks ago when I bought the Tamron. :gah:

I'd have sprung for the used VR1

 

[Robin Usagani]

My daily routine coming to work is to check Craigslist 2X a day.

 

[shaunly]

AF-S 80-200mm goes for about $1100, AF-S VR1 70-200mm ~ $1450 good condition used. Or D7000 and a used 80-200 AF-D ~ 1900. I'd go for the D7000 combo.
:gah: <---- cracks me up every time.