# Nikon 70-300mm VR II or Tokina 80-200mm 2.8?



## nickzou (Dec 6, 2011)

So I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my Nikon 70-300mm. It gets soft near 300mm and no matter how much I play with the AF fine tune it just doesn't seem to want to be sharp at that focal length. Plus, it isn't not a very fast lens. BUT it does have VR and I think that's pretty useful. I've found a couple of Tokina 80-200mm f2.8's on eBay for around a comparable price. No image stabilization but I'm assuming this is supposed to be a "pro" lens because of its fast aperture. What would you guys do? Keep the VR lens or sell it and get an older but faster lens?


----------



## Dillard (Dec 6, 2011)

Tamron and Sigma both make a 70-200 f2.8 that gets pretty good reviews


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 6, 2011)

I'm in a similar dilema, I am thinking of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I've decided to stay put with the Nikon for now.. I think anyway!

The Tammy appears to be a beast in terms of IQ.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 6, 2011)

Look for a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 used. They are a much loved lens and can be found for a good price. 
From what I am seeing on the Tokina it's a dog to focus and has major chromatic aberration. There have evidently been some issues with it and back and front focusing to which Tokina has responded that it's not designed to be used on a Dslr, but a film camera. I have no idea why that would be different, but that's their story and they're sticking to it. 
The tamron is a budget option. It's slow on the focus, but it is sharp and a very well rounded lens for the price.


----------



## nickzou (Dec 6, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:
			
		

> I'm in a similar dilema, I am thinking of the Tamron 70-200 2.8. I've decided to stay put with the Nikon for now.. I think anyway!
> 
> The Tammy appears to be a beast in terms of IQ.



Better than the Sigma? Because I wasn't impressed with the Sigma at f2.8.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 6, 2011)

nickzou said:


> Nikon_Josh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have never seen test images from a third-party 70-200 or 80-200 that were "impressive" when the lens was shot at f/2.8. In fact, my basic characterization of third-party, $700-$1200 zoom lenses in this category is "not good wide-open", or "decidedly soft wide open". There's a reason Sigma was making 70-200 f/2.8 lenses six years ago, priced at $1,000 lower than comparably-spec'd Canon L-series and Nikon VR-G series lenses...because there are serious design compromises made in order to keep the prices low...either on focus speed, or close-range performance, or flatness of field, or just-slightly-inferior optics,etc,etc. Tokina has been aiming for low-priced knock-off lenses for almost a decade now,competing mostly on build quality and price point.

One needs to read reviews pretty carefully...the Tokina 80-200/2.8 AT-X Pro from what I saw in one review was indeed, as MleeK said, filled with CA. It's an older design that does pre-date digital SLR capture optimization; the thing about a zoom designed for a crop-frame sensor is that the lens needs to have VERY HIGH level optical performance over a small field area, like Nikon's 70-200 VR 1 model had; it was notably better than Canon's 70-200 2.8 L IS USM on APS-C, but the Canon, being years older, was MUCH better across a wider imaging area AKA film or FF. So, Nikon had to re-design a new 70-200, a Mark II version. Canon re-designed it's 70-200 IS USM to a Mark II designation. The Tokina is now what one might say "four or five" generations behind in mechanical technology,and three or four behind in optical design...

I dunno...when a guy looks at a lens that need to be stopped down to f/8 to equalize centers and corners and get away from color fringing....ehhh...even $700 seems like WASTED money to me.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 6, 2011)

Which sigma? 
All lenses are sharper stopped down and are at their sharpest about two stops down from wide open. My sigma is pretty impressive at f/2.8 and just about amazing at 5.6 but I have the OS version-not the original. 
Same for my tamron, It's sharp wide open, but better stopped down to about 5.6. My sigma is sharper.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 6, 2011)

Sigma has made what is it now? Is it FOUR different 70-200 f/2.8 models???


----------



## nickzou (Dec 6, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> Which sigma?
> All lenses are sharper stopped down and are at their sharpest about two stops down from wide open. My sigma is pretty impressive at f/2.8 and just about amazing at 5.6 but I have the OS version-not the original.
> Same for my tamron, It's sharp wide open, but better stopped down to about 5.6. My sigma is sharper.



This one lol:







And to be clear, I'm not just going by the comparison in the video. The Sigma looks sufficiently sharp at 200mm in some of the shots. But sometimes it just still looks like it is out of focus.

This my Nikon 50mm at f/1.4. It's still kinda hazy but it is sufficiently "sharp", it doesn't look like I missed the focus.






This is my Tokina 20-35mm at 35mm f/2.8. Same thing, after twittling around with the AF tune on my camera I got it to the point where I think this lens is sufficiently sharp wide open.





I fully understand that if I stopped these lenses down that they will be sharper, but at their maximum apertures, I don't think these are too bad. In your opinion is the Sigma at 2.8 comparatively (to my two examples) sharp? If so, then it is probably good enough for me.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Dec 6, 2011)

Nikon 70-200 VRII and don't look back


----------



## nickzou (Dec 6, 2011)

Great I can sell my 70-300mm and I'll still be short 2000 bucks.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 6, 2011)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53312364@N00/sets/72157623791809502/detail/

D90 and a sigma 70-200mm. Most of these are shot @ 2.8. I'm impressed, but maybe my standards aren't as high as most.


----------



## nickzou (Dec 6, 2011)

Yeah I've been staring at the test shots on dpreview as well. The thing about flickr, or at least that person's flickr is the largest resolution isn't nearly large enough to tell if the image is sharp or not. The ones are dpreview are. Quite honestly I am impressed with the shots from the Sigma. Still I _think_ the Nikons are sharper, but not by nearly as much as I remembered. At this point it might just be the placebo effect, I'm not sure if I can tell the difference. If I'm questioning my eyes and can't really come to a conclusive judgement as to which is actually sharper, I don't think I can justify a lens that is a 1000 dollars more just for a slight edge in sharpness with may very well just be all in my mind.


----------



## Ballistics (Dec 7, 2011)

It's also a matter of $2200  vs $700. The shots are 9x7 or larger on my screen and they are sharp at 2.8. If you are going to blow it up to the 200%+ and are really going to split hairs, then get the Nikon.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Dec 7, 2011)

My First Shoot with the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 « Scott Kelby&#039;s Photoshop Insider Blog » Photoshop & Digital Photography Techniques, Tutorials, Books, Reviews & More 

Check this out.. a real world test on a Tamron 70-200 against a Nikon 70-200 2.8.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 8, 2011)

Im a big fan of the nikon 80-200mm, afd versions can be had for $500 in fantastic condition. If u need faster focus the afs version runs about $850.


----------



## benhasajeep (Dec 9, 2011)

I agree with others on a Used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 over any of the others.  Make sure its the 2 ring version.  The older version which is a single push pull version is good.  But the newer design 2 ring is a bit better.  I have had the 2 ring version since new for over 13 years now (AF-D version, not AF-S).  And it still works great.  Tokina lenses are built very strong, more traditional type of construction.  Sigma and Tamron use lots of plastic.  Tokina are known for being soft, and most have some level of CA.  I do have and like my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 though.  I just don't shoot it wide open.  Many lenses even from the big manufacturers do get soft wide open, especially when zoomed out all the way.

Now having said that.  Assuming price is a major consideration.   Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 (2-ring) would be my first choice.  I have no experience with the AF-S version.  Although the AF-S version may focus faster.  I have yet to have a problem with my AF-D version focusing slow.  I have had very bad luck with Sigma products.  So I no longer look at them.  I do own 1 Sigma lens right now.  But not really happy with it.  I had to send it in for service after less than 2 hours of use.  It came back and works, but focuses slower now.  And Sigma swears its in spec.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 9, 2011)

As MLeek mentioned.. look for a NIKON 80-200 2.8 AFS used..... stay away from the third party stuff in that range.. most of it is junk!

Personally... I would also look at a Nikon 28-300... The aperture isn't 2.8, but the lens is sharp... no CA that I have seen.. and focuses fast, much faster than the 70-300 VR and MUCH MUCH faster than the 3rd party lenses in this range. I have example photos if you want to see them. I use this lens as my walkaround... usually when outdoors, I either have this lens, or my 70-200 2.8 VR II on. The 28-300 can be had used for around $800.. which is obviously in your range... since you are looking at a$700 5mm 1.4 Zeiss, yes?


----------



## nickzou (Dec 11, 2011)

Alright, so I guess I should have asked this question earlier but how do these third party 70-200's compare in terms of IQ (sharpness/contrast/whatever) to the 70-300 VR II. If it is on par with this lens I would be pretty happy. From 70-200 on the VR II, I think the images look great, it's just the aperture that I kinda have a problem with.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 11, 2011)

Nick... spend a grand.... and get a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED used! You won't regret it.. if you really feel you have to have that 2.8 aperture, that is going to be your absolute best bet.


----------



## nickzou (Dec 11, 2011)

I actually have the oldest model of that lens. Finally got it repaired (de-centered element). Even after getting it repaired it doesn't feel all that sharp and I do miss VR.


----------



## nickzou (May 30, 2013)

So yeah... took me about a year and a half but I found the 80-200mm AF-S on Kijiji selling for 675. I bought it, it's great. And I didn't even have to blow a grand on it.


----------



## Gavjenks (May 30, 2013)

A 2.8 lens is 1-2 ish stops faster than a 4.5-5.6 lens.
Image stabilization generally gives 1-2 ish stops back to you, but only for camera motion (or subject motion when panning in some models).

Thus, *all other things equal*, a 2.8 lens is pretty much objectively better than a 4.5-5.6 lens with image stabilization, because both of them wide open will shoot at the same speed for still subjects, and the 2.8 will do much better for a wider variety (or all) moving subjects.  Also... more DOF control in your hands.


*Edit*: oh okay, this thread is over a year old, other than the update from the OP just now.  But still.  Above thoughts are relevant to many situations.


----------

