Which lens to get?

Nikographer

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 5, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Location
South Africa
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I have 3 options to buy in the 70-200mm range:

the

Nikon 70-200mm F/4
Tamron SP 70-200 F/2.8 Di VC USD
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM


Which lens do you think is the better option? I am not well educated about the differences they have but I do know the Nikon 70-200mm F4 is a lens with great IQ. I am not that familiar with the other 2. One thing to note is that the third party lenses are 1 stop faster than the Nikon one. But they cost around the same. I can't afford a Nikon F/2.8.


Any advice?

I plan mainly to shoot portraits with this lens and then whatever else I can find I suppose. Thanks a lot.
 
I actually have a D3200 so I don't think all of those fit on a DX camera. Not sure. I know the Nikon one can though.


After watching some reviews I must say... I think the Nikon lenses just look much better when you compare image quality. But I can't be completely sure of anything though.
 
As long as the 3rd party lenses are for Nikon mounts then they will fit your camera. If you can't afford the Nikon 70-200 F4 IMO the Tamron would be the better choice BUT IQ is hit or miss with either Tamron or Sigma.

Have you looked into the Nikon 80-200 2.8?
 
any of those lenses will work fine on your camera. I don't have an opinion on the tamron or sigma since I do not own or have used those lenses. I just recently got the nikon 70-200 f/4 and can tell you that the 70-200mm has been on my camera for 80% of the time. yes, it is the latest lens I bought and is being used a lot because of that. but, I must say that this lens is wonderful. in many ways. it would be nice to have the 2.8, but, the f/4 for what I shoot (outdoor mainly) will suffice. you will love the nikon 70-200mm f/4.

I have read so many reviews and watched youtube videos up the wazoo and found the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to be not up to par against the nikon 70-200 f/4. this according to other peoples experiences, not mine. AND....comparing the nikon 70-200 f/2.8 vs. the f/4 nikon, many people would go or have gone with the nikon 70-200mm f/4. it's lighter, sharper and has a little more contrast.

it also depends on what you will be using this lens for. outdoor or indoor?? think of what you will be shooting with this lens before buying it. for me, indoor shooting, I use my 35 1.8g or 50 1.8g. really nothing else. oh, and a flash. the flash is your friend for indoor shoots.

good luck
 
As long as the 3rd party lenses are for Nikon mounts then they will fit your camera. If you can't afford the Nikon 70-200 F4 IMO the Tamron would be the better choice BUT IQ is hit or miss with either Tamron or Sigma.

the tamron is $100 more expensive than the nikon.
 
As long as the 3rd party lenses are for Nikon mounts then they will fit your camera. If you can't afford the Nikon 70-200 F4 IMO the Tamron would be the better choice BUT IQ is hit or miss with either Tamron or Sigma.

the tamron is $100 more expensive than the nikon.

Hmmm I didn't know that...I was looking at the older version of the Tamron. I just read some reviews on the newer Tamron and it looks like a darn good lens! I would still prefer the Nikon 70-200 F4 if ut was up to me. I guess the OP didn't realize that the Tamron cost more than the Nikon either. Decisions.....Decisions.....
 
As long as the 3rd party lenses are for Nikon mounts then they will fit your camera. If you can't afford the Nikon 70-200 F4 IMO the Tamron would be the better choice BUT IQ is hit or miss with either Tamron or Sigma.

the tamron is $100 more expensive than the nikon.

Hmmm I didn't know that...I was looking at the older version of the Tamron. I just read some reviews on the newer Tamron and it looks like a darn good lens! I would still prefer the Nikon 70-200 F4 if ut was up to me. I guess the OP didn't realize that the Tamron cost more than the Nikon either. Decisions.....Decisions.....

I am fully aware of the prices. You are mistaking me saying I can't afford the F4 with me saying I can't afford a Nikon F2.8.

I actually want a Nikon 70-200 F4 and I love it's sharpness and quality. But I was just wondering if I ever shoot a wedding in the distant future or something perhaps that F2.8 will come in handy.

Overall I am still very unsure about which lens to get, if I get one. I currently own a 55-200mm Nikon VR and it's very soft at 55mm and the outer focal lengths but it's plenty good in the middle parts of the lens.

It is quite a lot of money so I will have to be sure what I want. Thanks for the replies.
 
For portraits you don't necessarily need 2.8. If your subject is close and the background is distant, f/4 looks the same as f/2.8. In fact you could go to probably 5.6 and still get a good bokeh. With small objects you can go to f/18. So you decide how important 2.8 is. Learn to choose and control the background. The main advantage IMO is 2.8 is better for low light, but just because I have 2.8 doesn't mean I always use it. For most instances I know it's not necessary. If the lenses cost about the same, the f/4 is a good option and I'd always pick Nikon glass. If you want 2.8 but don't have the budget, try used. I do own the 70-200 2.8 VR and I would buy it again. It's an amazing tool.
 
I would say the nikkor 35mm 1.8 and nikkor 85mm 1.8 would be a great pair of lenses for a wedding. get the 70-200mm f/4 nikon and you won't be disappointed.
 
the tamron is $100 more expensive than the nikon.

Hmmm I didn't know that...I was looking at the older version of the Tamron. I just read some reviews on the newer Tamron and it looks like a darn good lens! I would still prefer the Nikon 70-200 F4 if ut was up to me. I guess the OP didn't realize that the Tamron cost more than the Nikon either. Decisions.....Decisions.....

I am fully aware of the prices. You are mistaking me saying I can't afford the F4 with me saying I can't afford a Nikon F2.8.

I actually want a Nikon 70-200 F4 and I love it's sharpness and quality. But I was just wondering if I ever shoot a wedding in the distant future or something perhaps that F2.8 will come in handy.

Overall I am still very unsure about which lens to get, if I get one. I currently own a 55-200mm Nikon VR and it's very soft at 55mm and the outer focal lengths but it's plenty good in the middle parts of the lens.

It is quite a lot of money so I will have to be sure what I want. Thanks for the replies.

My apologies...since you can afford the Nikon then get the 70-200 F4:) If you ever decide to shoot a wedding indoors then yes the 2.8 would be a nice option for low light conditions....
 
I wish I knew exactly what the differences between the lenses are in terms of image quality. It's just hard to know.
 
I would love to have a big awesome professional lens like a 2.8F but I want to be sure it will last and be worth the money to me. I don't want a hit or miss gamble in terms of sharpness.
 
I would love to have a big awesome professional lens like a 2.8F but I want to be sure it will last and be worth the money to me. I don't want a hit or miss gamble in terms of sharpness.

Build quality and IQ performance Nikon wins hands down over Tamron or Sigma. I own the 70-200 2.8 VRII and it's a beast of a lens in terms of build quality and weight. It took me a while to get use to lugging that thing around on my D7000. I went to my local camera shop in town and did a hands on test with the 70-200 F4 and I can tell you that the build quality is very nice but just a step down from the 70-200 2.8 VRII. However, I was blown away by how light that thing was and I could get use to hand holding that thing all day with no problems.

Honestly, this is a no brainer if you have the $$$ buy the Nikon 70-200 F4. It may not be a 2.8 but it will make that up in IQ,Focus Speed & having the newest VR Technology. A lot of people have said that the F4 is just as sharp as the 2.8 if not sharper throughout the focal range.
 
I think I agree. I keep seeing pictures and reading reviews and those third party lenses just aren't as sharp as the Nikon/Canon lenses at all... It looks nice and big and professional but it just isn't that great IMO.

I think the Nikon F4 might even do as well as them in low light because of that VR and it would just be sharper in general, might focus more accurate too etc.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top