Help me decide!

[frommrstomommy]

I was certain I was going to pull the trigger and get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC.. also looked at the Sigma but thought I had decided on Tamron. I'd love the Nikkor VRII but its just out of my price range and I don't know that I could ever justify another grand. lol I already feel guilty spending around $1200 in all honesty.

So now I find myself questioning my Tamron choice and looking at the Nikkor 80-200 2.8D lens and open to other suggestions.

This is what I'd love in a lens and not sure if all are possible but I 99% shoot portraits.. but I want a zoom as all I have now are a couple primes and a kit lens.

under $1000 would be amazing but I could comfortably spend up to $1200 or so right now
good for portraits
good in low light
SHARP << very important for me
beautiful bokeh
2.8 is a must

it would also be nice if it would work well for..
sports - just my husband's rugby team games coming up - doesn't need to be "stellar" for sports but it would be nice if I had a decent lens for these games
and something I could play with for macro/wildlife would be fun for in the future

I know, I'm asking a lot here.. but yeah, what would you buy?


**edited to add that apparently this was my 2000th post.. I guess I'll take it. lol

 

[frommrstomommy]

The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S may also be an option in my price range bought used.

 

[bc_steve]

The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S may also be an option in my price range bought used.

I have this one and love it. I think $1200-1300 is around the going rate for a used one.

 

[sm4him]

A few months back, I picked up an older Tamron, says "LD Di SP Tamron AF 70-200 f/2.8 (IF) Macro"--it was less than $600 at keh.com. I'd been looking at Sigmas because, like you, the Nikon was just out of my reach, and I just wasn't finding a good deal on the older 80-200 at the time.
I was a little skeptical about the particular Tamron I got, because there are versions that get decent reviews and versions that don't and I wasn't completely sure I was getting a good version, considering the price. But I figured since it was keh, I could always just return it if it was awful.

It has proved to be one of the best lens purchases I've made to date; I love this thing! Nice and sharp, pretty good AF--the only trouble I have with it being slow to grab focus has been when I've shot with the 1.4x TC on it.
I'd highly recommend it to anyone looking for an acceptable substitute for the pricier (and no doubt, better) Nikon. But I'd probably also recommend buying from someone like keh, B&H, Adorama, etc. where returns aren't a problem if you don't get a sharp copy.

 

[JohnnyWrench]

The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S may also be an option in my price range bought used.

I have this one and love it. I think $1200-1300 is around the going rate for a used one.

Isn't this a DX optimized lens? And therefore has pretty bad light fall off at the edges on an FX sensor?

 

[Patrice]

The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S may also be an option in my price range bought used.

I have this one and love it. I think $1200-1300 is around the going rate for a used one.

Isn't this a DX optimized lens? And therefore has pretty bad light fall off at the edges on an FX sensor?

The lens might have come out in the DX days but it does pretty well on FX (D700) as well. I see no need to get rid. The corners have not been cropped out in the following image. Tests and reviews from sites such as DPreview and others tell one story and photos from everyday use tell another.

Do not be afraid to use this lens on a FX format camera. It gets the job done, and very well.

 

[Patrice]

Here is another from the 70-200 VR1 on FX. This lens does what it needs to do.

 

[goodguy]

Bought the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC few months ago and it has really opened my eyes, it is a superbly good lens, fast focusing has a nice bokeh and most importantly super sharp.
The Sigma is another good option but with the price difference of 100$ seriously don't think twice, I am glad I got this lens, its simply an awesome lens and worth its price.
I use it a lot for portrait and I feel it really upgraded the total results compared to what I used before, I do use my Nikon 85mm 1.8G for portraits as well but I mostly use it when I shoot indoors, outside for portrait its mostly my Tamron 70-200mm.
But I use this lens for so much more, shooting insects, sports, animals and much, much more, this focal range brings a lot of flexibility and I use it A LOT.

Get the Tamron and you will be glad you did just like me!

 

[astroNikon]

The 80-200/2.8 D is a superb lens. But for sports you have to change your shooting habits and be much more involved with the game and following action. You have to do alot of half releases to keep focusing tight to prevent any hunting for long focus throws. I have never tried the 70-200 AF-S lens for comparison but my AF-S lenses focus very fast comparitively. But I picked my dual ring for several hundred under $1k. A big price difference.

WIth your hubby wanting to do sports (and assuming he's not really a full time camera person like yourself) I recommend you stay with an AF-S lens .. a used Nikon or one of the other ones.
And on a large field you may find the 200mm limiting. On my kids soccer I'm trying a 70-300VRII (variable aperture) lens now.

you can check my flicker for recent 70-300 and all the past soccer shots on the 80-200 AF-D

 

[goodguy]

3 pictures I took with a buddy of mine on few of our photography trips of course with the Tamron 70-200mm VC

 

[Braineack]

wanna know why it's hard to find used 70-200 VCs? because no one wants to sell them.

here's the last I took with mine:


DSC_1388-12 by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[frommrstomommy]

Lol its true. The used are hard to come by!

 

[robbins.photo]

I was certain I was going to pull the trigger and get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC.. also looked at the Sigma but thought I had decided on Tamron. I'd love the Nikkor VRII but its just out of my price range and I don't know that I could ever justify another grand. lol I already feel guilty spending around $1200 in all honesty.

So now I find myself questioning my Tamron choice and looking at the Nikkor 80-200 2.8D lens and open to other suggestions.

This is what I'd love in a lens and not sure if all are possible but I 99% shoot portraits.. but I want a zoom as all I have now are a couple primes and a kit lens.

under $1000 would be amazing but I could comfortably spend up to $1200 or so right now
good for portraits
good in low light
SHARP << very important for me
beautiful bokeh
2.8 is a must

it would also be nice if it would work well for..
sports - just my husband's rugby team games coming up - doesn't need to be "stellar" for sports but it would be nice if I had a decent lens for these games
and something I could play with for macro/wildlife would be fun for in the future

I know, I'm asking a lot here.. but yeah, what would you buy?


**edited to add that apparently this was my 2000th post.. I guess I'll take it. lol

Well if it helps I bought the Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS - never regretted it. It's a great lens. Most of the people I know with the Tamron will tell you the same thing.

The 80-200 is also optically an outstanding lens though it is an older lens without a built in AF motor and as a result it will not focus quite as fast as the newer Tamron/Sigma from what I understand.

 

[hamlet]

Great suggestions. You've got nothing but choices right now. In terms of sharpness, the tamron should be up there. I feel like Sigma is going to release a newer art version of the 70-200 with the usual artsy fartsy twist. Maybe it will 70-200 f1.8 or f2 with laser guided missiles . They are the one to watch.

 

[frommrstomommy]

Maybe I am just making myself crazy for nothing. I did A LOT of reading when I decided on the Tamron.. BUT I didn't at all even consider the Nikkor V1 at that time.. so I guess that's my biggest "competitor" right now in my head because the price point is like.. identical especially.