Telephoto lens recommendations

[Matt Glick]

My next purchase is going to be a telephoto zoom lens. The type of shooting I would like to be doing with it will be landscape or cityscapes with the moon in the frame.

I definitely don't have $2000 to spend. I would like to stay under $1000 if possible, however going $100 over wont kill me.

Looking at these options:

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens 2161

How is the 1st one so much cheaper than the rest? Is it the Aperture rating?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f 4G ED VR Lens 2202 B H Photo Video

Sigma 70-200mm f 2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Nikon 589306 B H Photo

Any others that are recommended? Thanks.

 

[goodguy]

Around the 1000$ I would go with the Sigma 70-200m 2.8, good sharp lens.

 

[runnah]

I'd go with the Tamron version of the 70-200 2.8.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the 70-300VR-G is slow to start, at f/4.5, and drops off to only f/5.6 a ways into the zoom range, and it's built in what I would describe as Nikon's high-end consumer build quality style; if feels plastic, but solid. It is smallish too, and is not a burdensome lens. I have owned one of these for a little over two years, and have carried it mostly on day trips and hikes, and it's a good lens, but optically it is nowhere near perfect, and it has some issues with refusal to initiate focus, which is an issue mostly when the focusing system is set very far from a new target's distance; this is common on this lens, it's not a one-off problem, it's well-known issue. If you look at something like DxO Mark's best lenses for Nikon D810 artile, you'll see this lens rates something like 15 Perceptual megapixels; in other words, it is not a bitingly sharp zoom lens. Its upper reaches are definitely weak; I can see that in my own pictures shot with the lens; I own better zooms, and better primes, optically.

The 70-200 f/4 VR-G is part of the new move to lighter weight, slightly smaller f/4 constant aperture pro-capable zoom lenses that Canon and Nikon have been undertaking. As ISO levels have been going up and up, there's ben a move to make professionally-capable f/4 zooms. That is what this lens is. This lens is a lot lighter and significantly skinnier than the f/2.8 version Nikon makes.

The Sigma costs less for an f/2.8 than the Nikkor f/2.8 because it's a third-party brand, and they need a sales advantage. Nikon and Canon have moved their f/2.8 models into the $2400 zone, up from $1699 then $1899 then $2199 over the last 15 years, and Sigma has moved upward to from $699 to $799 and now to where they are at. Runnah's suggestion of looking at the Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC makes sense if you're in the market for a third-party brand 70-200 2.8 lens. The thing to do research on comes down to, "How good is this zoom lens at f/2.8, as in how good from a reallllllly critical POV, is the optical performance with the lens wide-open, compared to say the best lens in the class?" A decade ago, Sigma's 70-200/2.8 zooms were NOT up to Nikon standards at f/2.8, but were about half the price new. Since that time, I think the 3rd party makers have upped their game. The questions for many people are, "Will I ever really use this lens at f/2.8? Do I always need to pack the extra 50% more weight? What's most important for ME?"

 

[goodguy]

I'd go with the Tamron version of the 70-200 2.8.

Tamron is slightly better then the Sigma but OP said up to 1000$ so unless going for used he will not be able to afford the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC

 

[ruifo]

I'd go with the Tamron version of the 70-200 2.8.

+1 for the Tamron:
Tamron SP 70-200mm f 2.8 Di VC USD Zoom Lens AFA009N-700 B H

And as a second option:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f 4G ED VR Lens 2202 B H Photo Video

Third option:
Sigma 70-200mm f 2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Nikon 589306 B H Photo

 

[KmH]

Consider a well cared for, used, Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D 2 ring - about $650.
New they are just $1099 -
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens

 

[Derrel]

Consider a well cared for, used, Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D 2 ring - about $650.
New they are just $1099 -
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens

Look at it critically at f/2.8, both corner and center here: 80-200mm f 2.8 Lens Review by Thom Hogan

For $100, the manual focus 80-200 f/4 AiS offers probably the same image quality, or better, than this now old AF-D lens. Of course, that's a manual focus lens, so it's not going to work nearly as well as an AF lens in a lot of situations where fast focus is a key factor in success or failure.

 

[shadowlands]

used Nikon AF or AF-S 80-200mm f2.8 all day long. It's so sharp, it's scary. Built like a tank!!!

 

[mattpayne11]

My next purchase is going to be a telephoto zoom lens. The type of shooting I would like to be doing with it will be landscape or cityscapes with the moon in the frame.

I definitely don't have $2000 to spend. I would like to stay under $1000 if possible, however going $100 over wont kill me.

Looking at these options:

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens 2161

How is the 1st one so much cheaper than the rest? Is it the Aperture rating?

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f 4G ED VR Lens 2202 B H Photo Video

Sigma 70-200mm f 2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Nikon 589306 B H Photo

Any others that are recommended? Thanks.

If you're looking to get the moon in your frame, you're going to find that the 70-200 will be a bit short. The 70-300 is actually a pretty solid lens for it's price... personally, I can't recommend enough the Nikon 300 f/4D - prices probably will fall now that the new version came out.

You can get a feel for what it is capable for by seeing my album here:

Nikkor 300 f 4 D - an album on Flickr

I ended up selling mine though, just was not using it much.

I now mostly use the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII for most of my telephoto work (I don't usually need to go longer than 200mm).

 

[cupic]

I have the Nikkor 70-300mm and its quite good and very capable as a go to lens for sports
Also in the loop is the new 300mm f/4E ED PF VR @ user US$2K its Fantastic bit of kit as well
with the 1.4 X TC its a better option to go with I regard this lens as a better option ( For me at least )

 

[jaomul]

If you are looking at 70-300mm lenses the Tamron 70-300mm vc is also worth a look. I can't say how it compares with the Nikon 70-300 vr, but reviews generally say its as good, few say it's better, few say not quite as good. I have it and like it and it's def worth the outlay in my opinion.

 

[Mattis]

If you want a light but also sharp lens I'd go with the 70-200mm f/4 from Nikon. For me f/4 is usually enough and this lens is super sharp.
But if you do want the bigger aperture the 70-200mm f/2.8s from Sigma and Tamron are definitely great as well! But they are a lot heavier. If weight is not an issue for you they are a great option.
Then there are also the 80-200mm f/2.8s from Nikon. They are sharp but old, so they lack some bells and whistles like VR. But they do have advantages! For one, you probably won't find a sharper f/2.8 zoom in that range for such a low price. I have the very first version of this lens, the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF ED (it's not even a D lens!) and I payed 240€ for it. At the time that was roughly $300. And it is just amazing in terms of IQ!

It is also built like a freaking tank. Almost all metal and heavy, but also very slow.

Another option would be Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I. It is MUCH cheaper than the VR II version but also a fantastic piece of glass! You can get that one for slightly over $1000 I guess.

 

[Matt Glick]

Revisiting this thread. I am probably going to buy used, but I am wanting to spend a relatively low amount. B&H does sell used lenses in a price range from $200-$500, which is the range I am looking at. In that price range, what lens is recommend?

Used Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f 4.5-5.6G IF-ED 2161