Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR or 3rd party 70-200/2.8?

[yatsunil]

Hi Nikon users. Need some advice from you guys. Deciding between the Nikon 70-300VR or a third party (maybe Sigma) 70-200/2.8. Can't afford the Nikon AFS 70-200/2.8VR so don't even talk about that! Using it mostly for travel pics, probably without a tripod. Any comments/ideas will be most appreciated!

Cheers

[tkbonz]

Depends whether you want the effect of a f2.8 lens more or something else. Personally, i will only get the f2.8 ORIGINAL version when i can afford it. No use getting a 3rd party f2.8 lens and later complain about it.

Edit: oh...didnt't see the travel part. If thats the case, get the 70-300VR, light and convenient for travelling.

[ice15]

I started a thread about Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8's

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495439

I still prefer something at 2.8 but not sure weather Tamron, Sigma or the 80-200 Nikon.

[tkbonz]

Originally Posted by ice15 I started a thread about Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8's http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495439 I still prefer something at 2.8 but not sure weather Tamron, Sigma or the 80-200 Nikon.

80-200 nikon. Used before, very impressed! I'm sure if you put all 3 lens you mentioned side by side to test, you will prefer the 80-200 nikon anytime. Sharp and nice colours.

[dazism]

agree....
given that budget..u'll much prefer AFD 80-200 f2.8

[nice1888]

Originally Posted by tkbonz 80-200 nikon. Used before, very impressed! I'm sure if you put all 3 lens you mentioned side by side to test, you will prefer the 80-200 nikon anytime. Sharp and nice colours.

I agree. No regret.

[kaikibbler]

Personally I would (and I am) save up for the nikkor 70-200. Or...look at my options again later this year in case there's a new VR-II version. Consider that with a 2X TC you'll have 400mm at the same aperture as the 70-300 at 300mm, and IQ will also be better.

That said I'm using the 70-300 for travelling now and it's a fine lens in its own right.

[earthling82]

I am also having a similiar dilemna here. Should I get a 18-200mm or 70-200 F2.8 third party.

For myself i shoot fast-paced event and 18-200mm can help me get shots up-close when I need. However, the benefits of 70-200mm means that i can shoot low light and use it to take nicer portraits

[ice15]

Originally Posted by earthling82 I am also having a similiar dilemna here. Should I get a 18-200mm or 70-200 F2.8 third party. For myself i shoot fast-paced event and 18-200mm can help me get shots up-close when I need. However, the benefits of 70-200mm means that i can shoot low light and use it to take nicer portraits

fast paced events...

Tamron 70-200 has slow auto focus but sharp picture
Sigma has good auto focus but a bit soft at f2.8 200mm (f4 is ok)

Nikon 80-200 has no internal motor so slow auto focus too.

for this i think you really need to 70-200 by Nikon.

I'm planning to rent the 80-200mm for 2 days just to check if it can cope with my requirements

[tkbonz]

Originally Posted by ice15 fast paced events... Tamron 70-200 has slow auto focus but sharp picture Sigma has good auto focus but a bit soft at f2.8 200mm (f4 is ok) Nikon 80-200 has no internal motor so slow auto focus too. for this i think you really need to 70-200 by Nikon. I'm planning to rent the 80-200mm for 2 days just to check if it can cope with my requirements

Do rent and try and then let us know. Cause i've used both 80-200 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses before. Yes the 70-200 is more superior in most ways but the 80-200 is no slouch in AF, it is still very fast, just that cause you can hear the motor noise (cause its not AF-S), IT SEEMS SLOWER. But in actually fact, you can't really tell the difference on the field.

Agree with the point on using 3rd party lenses, if you shoot fast event, the f2.8 is useless if you can't focus in time. In this case high iso is better than f2.8.

[gnohz]

Originally Posted by earthling82 I am also having a similiar dilemna here. Should I get a 18-200mm or 70-200 F2.8 third party. For myself i shoot fast-paced event and 18-200mm can help me get shots up-close when I need.

Take note that 18-200 is actually 18-130 when focusing on near objects. This is a limitation of this lens

[nice1888]

Originally Posted by gnohz Take note that 18-200 is actually 18-130 when focusing on near objects. This is a limitation of this lens

Hi gnohz,

you mean 18-200 will back to 18-200 when focusing far objects?

[ice15]

Originally Posted by nice1888 Hi gnohz, you mean 18-200 will back to 18-200 when focusing far objects?

you may want to read this long thread. but it explains everything

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498346

[gymak90]

Here's my opinion,

I've used a sigma and nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens before.
Of course you can save money by buying a 3rd party 70-200 f2.8, however this lens represents the very best optics and maximum sharpness, constrast and speed at f2.8. Somehow 3rd party 70-200 f2.8 lenses never manage to achieve as good as the 1st party ones.

So I would suggest to take the 70-300 VR. I've used it and the sharpness is pretty similar to a nikon 70-200 f2.8. Of course it not as good, but very close.

[gnohz]

Originally Posted by nice1888 Hi gnohz, you mean 18-200 will back to 18-200 when focusing far objects?

I think ice15's link is a good read. Basically, I think you need to focus at infinity (or near infinity) to get the full 200mm of 18-200

[nice1888]

Originally Posted by gnohz I think ice15's link is a good read. Basically, I think you need to focus at infinity (or near infinity) to get the full 200mm of 18-200

Thank you gnohz,

I will check it out.

[mywish4]

i have the 70-300 Nikkor and happy with it. for the price point i think it is reasonable. unless you take a lot of telephoto shots, then investing in a 70-200 2.8 might make sense. otherwise though the want is there for 70-200, practically having 70-300 sitting in the dry cabinet is less painful than having the 70-200 there. heart says 70-200, brain says 70-300 ... just my 5 cents worth.

[panik]

agree with mywish 4 on this... 70-300 is a good size lens for travel and offers good iq for the price.

[Lomographer]

I have used both the 70-300 VR and 70-200 VR from nikon

and i sold the 70-200 because i didnt need f/2.8 and it is less convenient then the 70-300

i personally recommend the 70-300 for light travelling and plus its got VR which reduces the need of a tripod

[yatsunil]

I just bought a used 70-300VR from a fellow CSer and so far....I LOVE IT!!!! Image quality and handling is up to my expectation. My opinion so far about this lens - if there is enough light, the 70-300vr is more than enough for my purposes. Only when the light is bad will I truly appreciate the speed of a f2.8 lens. Guess this solves my question of a long lens for travel. Cheers guys!