# Best 70-200 lens for Nikon mount?



## Live_free (Apr 21, 2010)

Hey everyone I'm in the market for a new lens and as I want to shoot sports I've been looking into 70-200 lenses. Any recommendations? I'd buy either sigma or Nikon made lenses. Thanks all. If you have any you could post a sample pic you've taken with it, that would help a load. Thanks all.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 21, 2010)

Live_free said:


> Hey everyone I'm in the market for a new lens and as I want to shoot sports I've been looking into 70-200 lenses. Any recommendations? I'd buy either sigma or Nikon made lenses. Thanks all. If you have any you could post a sample pic you've taken with it, that would help a load. Thanks all.



Sigma has a few "gems" out there but their 70-200 is not one of them. Go for the Nikon; you can still get the VRI new from B&H if you want to save $350. I'm getting the VRII


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2010)

Nikon, all the way. Either the first generation or second generation model.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 21, 2010)

I take back what I said about finding the VRI on B&H. Last night they still had it listed, but now it's labeled as discontinued.


----------



## Garbz (Apr 21, 2010)

Define best. Best in it's class, or best for you? Do you need VR? What about max reproduction ratio?

The Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 G VR II is about as good as it gets, but I'd be dammed if I'm going to pay the premium for that lens over the Nikkor AF 80-200 f/2.8D which will probably look optically the same on the pictures I take.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 21, 2010)

I just looked at the VR II and I must say I just can't justify paying 2.2k for a lens.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 21, 2010)

I want some pro glass, but there is no way i can afford some of those.  So i plan on getting the nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D, the two ring one.  You can pick it up used for about 900, and new for 1100.  Seems pretty reasonable to me, compared the the 70-200. Its still pro glass, right?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2010)

If you want a lens for sports shooting, you truly want a Nikon-made, genuine AF-S lens, that conforms to all Nikon focusing protocols, on all bodies. The difference between an 80-200 AF-D and an 80-200 AF-S (made only for a short time) and the two 70-200 AF-S models is that with an AF-S lens, the focusing distance can be calculated by the focusing system with incredible precision; with all the AF-D lenses, the focusing system uses an "adjust-and-compare,repeatedly" system of arriving at the right focusing point; with AF-S, the exact focusing distance needed can be predicted by the computer,and the in-lens focusing motor will drive the lens almost to the **EXACT** point of focus,using predictive focusing information--which is not how the AF-D lenses focus. On the lower-end Nikon bodies, like the D200 and D90, AF-D lenses have a decidedly slower focusing action than on the D1-D2-D3-D700 series, which have a better in-body focusing motor. On the lower-level Nikon bodies, an AF-D lens is at a decided disadvantage compared with the same AF-D lens on a top-tier body, and the lower-end and mid-range Nikon bodies benefit a lot from an AF-S lens. For any rapidly-moving subjects, an AF-S 70-200 will outperform the slower, non-predictive AF-D focusing lenses, especially under challenging focusing situations. There is also the lack of manual focusing override with an AF-D lens, and the need to manually disengage AF in order to do even a minor AF override with an AF-D lens.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 21, 2010)

^^ Thank you for that.  I didnt know that, and that is interesting to learn.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 21, 2010)

Disregard, i reread the ending of ur post.  Haha.

And, which is better for a "lower end" body, such as my D200, or the OP's D90. From what you said, im guessing it would be the AF-S. Is there a significant enough difference between the two to make it worth the extra 200?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 21, 2010)

I think the pro-level AF-S Nikkor lenses are worth the additional cost. I have owned two of the 80-200 screwdriver-focusing lenses and also the 70-200 AF-S, the original model. There's nothing faster than a good, pro-level AF-S Nikkor lens when it comes to focusing speed and sureness, especially when you want to shoot action shots. With an AF-D lens, if the lens mis-focuses a bit, you have to disengage the AF system just to touch up the focus...with an AF-S lens, there is full-time manuakl focusing override on all of the "pro-level" AF-S lenses; Nikon's AF-S protocol has two levels; the "pro" AF-S lenses all have the original AF-S system with full time manual focusing override. A small sub-set of Nikkor lenses, like the really cheap, newest kit zooms that call themselves AF-S have an A/M switch and do not offer full-time manual focusing override.

I don't mean to describe the D200 as low-end, but it was the last of the mid-level bodies that had the amateur/pro AF system distinction/differentiation: the D300 in 2007 was the first mid-priced Nikon to offer the top-level AF module (the 51-point AF module also used in the D3 and D700), while the D200 used the simpler, 11-area AF system, and also the D200 and other lower-level Nikons simply do not have the big, beefy AF motors and huge battery capacity of the $5,000 D1-D2-D3 series bodies...

The fastest and easiest way to beef up the AF capability of a lower-end Nikon like a D50,D70,D80,D90,D100,Fuji S2, Fuji S5,D40,D60, is to slap a pro-grade AF-S Nikkor on there. On the Nikon big glass like the 70-200 VR, 200mm f/2, and 300/2.8 AFS-II or newer, the LENS ITSELF has a huge focusing advantage over any of the older AF-D lenses in terms of focusing speed, sureness, and the ability to simply touch up the focus, without the need to press a button and turn a ring, or to flip an A/M switch. The older screwdriver focusing lenses simply do not focus the same way as the new AF-S pro-level lenses; it's possible for those who have only new Nikon lower-level AF-S zooms to be unfamiliar with the full-time manual focusing override design of the older AF-S lenses and the new pro-level AF-S lenses. For a user who has only the 18-55 or the 55-200 kit, they might be unaware of how the older, and pro-level zooms offer FTM and also much faster, surer AF than the low-cost, slower-speed and newest kit zooms with this new cheapened AF-S system that relies on an A/M switch.


----------



## jeph (Apr 21, 2010)

Well I don't have any of this technical know-how but I do know that I rented a 70-200 VRII to go to an indy car race and after that experience I had to buy it.  By the time that I uploaded the pics the quality went down but at 100% crop on my computer it is as sharp as I could want.  Oh and the focus is stupid fast and right on.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 21, 2010)

D-B-J said:


> I want some pro glass, but there is no way i can afford some of those.  So i plan on getting the nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D, the two ring one.  You can pick it up used for about 900, and new for 1100.  Seems pretty reasonable to me, compared the the 70-200. Its still pro glass, right?



I think Derrel already clarified, but no it's not a pro lens. 

I have used the 80-200 and I wasn't all that impressed with it. The VRII is hard to swallow, but I know it will be much better in the long run. Pro glass is something you can keep for 5 or 10 years, and I don't see the 80-200 being something that I could ever use that long without replacing it. 

OP, if you can't afford the Nikon lens, that basically makes the decision for you. You may be able to find a used VRI.


----------



## Live_free (Apr 22, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > I want some pro glass, but there is no way i can afford some of those.  So i plan on getting the nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D, the two ring one.  You can pick it up used for about 900, and new for 1100.  Seems pretty reasonable to me, compared the the 70-200. Its still pro glass, right?
> ...



I can afford it, I just cant quantify spending that much on a lens.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 22, 2010)

Live_free said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...



Same difference for all intensive purposes. I was by no means implying that you can't afford expensive items, just that you already made the decision on your own if you are comparing two choices and don't want to pay for one. 

The sigma has decent reviews, but I would still think about trying to find a used VRI.


----------



## KmH (Apr 22, 2010)

200 mm is good for inside court sports but is kind of short for field sports.

Plan on cropping most of your images to get good subject scale when you shoot field sports.


----------



## sleist (Apr 22, 2010)

Live_free said:


> I can afford it, I just cant quantify spending that much on a lens.



It's a wierd thing.  I spent a year trying to talk myself out of the D90 because it was so much.  Then I started looking at glass and I can't believe how fast I pulled the trigger on the 70-200mm VR1.  I'm very glad I did, but boy has this "hobby" altered my brain with respect to spending money. 

I would bite the bullet and get a new/used 70-200mm VR1.  It pairs very well with the D90 and and the $300-$400 you don't spend on the VR2 will get you the TC-17 (almost) for that extra reach you might need on outdoor sports and wildlife.

Unfortunately for the bank account, it really is all about the glass.  Lucky for me I'm divorced so WAF (1) does not impact the decision.


(1) Wife Acceptance Factor


----------



## djacobox372 (Apr 23, 2010)

Live_free said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > D-B-J said:
> ...



Heck if you look hard enough you can find a 80-200 f2.8 af, push pull version, for as low as $500 used in mint condition.  Optically it's just as good as any other f2.8 ??-200mm zoom, and the focus speed isn't bad at all for such a heavy lens using the on-body af motor.


----------

