70-200 f2.8: I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 lens for my Nikon D7100. I have an 18-200 and several other lenses. I've seen posts on UHH that rave about using a 70-200 f2.8. Nikon, Tamron...

Pine1 Loc: Midland & Lakeway

I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 lens for my Nikon D7100. I have an 18-200 and several other lenses. I've seen posts on UHH that rave about using a 70-200 f2.8. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all offer this lens at vastly different prices. They range from $800, $1,300 to $2,400. You can surmise my question?

creativ simon Loc: Coulsdon, South London

Sigma gets rave reviews and great price

sbesaw Loc: Boston

Pine1 wrote:

I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 lens for my Nikon D7100. I have an 18-200 and several other lenses. I've seen posts on UHH that rave about using a 70-200 f2.8. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all offer this lens at vastly different prices. They range from $800, $1,300 to $2,400. You can surmise my question?

Dxo Labs rates new Tamron lens sharpest of all. I own Nikon 2.8 VR but would take a long look today at the Tamron and save $800

ReFlections Loc: From LA to AL

I have the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. Why do I love it?
1. Metal - Built to last
2. Exceptional Bokeh
3. With VR- can shoot w/o tripod
4. Great auctioning-stopping lens
5. Excellent in low low light with soft backgrounds.
Never used the others you mentioned but for sure, this Nikon 70-200 is a keeper for ME.

ReFlections Loc: From LA to AL

CrispColors wrote:

I have the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. Why do I love it?
1. Metal - Built to last
2. Exceptional Bokeh
3. With VR- can shoot w/o tripod
4. Great auctioning-stopping lens
5. Excellent in low low light with soft backgrounds.
Never used the others you mentioned but for sure, this Nikon 70-200 is a keeper for ME.

OOPS. Action - stopping lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Pine1 wrote:

I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 lens for my Nikon D7100. I have an 18-200 and several other lenses. I've seen posts on UHH that rave about using a 70-200 f2.8. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all offer this lens at vastly different prices. They range from $800, $1,300 to $2,400. You can surmise my question?

Take a look at this five-part review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sbesaw wrote:

Dxo Labs rates new Tamron lens sharpest of all. I own Nikon 2.8 VR but would take a long look today at the Tamron and save $800

:thumbup:

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

jerryc41 wrote:

:thumbup:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

mborn wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

:thumbup:

dooragdragon Loc: Alma , Arkansas

Do you actually need a top of the line lens?
Can you afford it ?
Do you sell you photo's?
Are you a professional who requires the best equip?
Are you one of those who want the best just to show off ?
In my opinion if the answer is no, then save your money and pick one of the other 2, use the saved funds for another lens or perhaps a road trip to use you new lens.
If you just have to have the nikon lens check out a refurbished on and save a few hundred bucks,these may be a brand new demo model from the store, one someone had a problem with thats been gone over better then a new one .
The choice is your's ,what quality of photos will you be satisfied with, are you going to print them off and enlarge and display them, are they going to be entered into photo contests?
Choose whatever makes you happy and satisfied withe the quality of images, if possible rent one of each and try it before buying and base your decision on that.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Pine1 wrote:

I'm considering a 70-200 f2.8 lens for my Nikon D7100. I have an 18-200 and several other lenses. I've seen posts on UHH that rave about using a 70-200 f2.8. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all offer this lens at vastly different prices. They range from $800, $1,300 to $2,400. You can surmise my question?

It's difficult to respond to questions such as these, for most certainly, someone's feelings get hurt. I prefer to think there are reasons for the price differences, and it's hard for me to imagine anything better constructed/performing than Nikon glass. But, that's just me. No offense intended to anyone.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

brucewells wrote:

It's difficult to respond to questions such as these, for most certainly, someone's feelings get hurt. I prefer to think there are reasons for the price differences, and it's hard for me to imagine anything better constructed/performing than Nikon glass. But, that's just me. No offense intended to anyone.

I own Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all 2.8. 24, 35, 50 and 85 all 1.4g. Also 105 and 200 micro. Also 16-35 f4, 24-120 f4, 16mm fisheye. 28-300. 135 2.0 DC. All purchases prior to 9/12 when I retired and took a part time job in a Camera store. Since then I have shot high end Sigma and TAMRON and the Tokina 11-16 and 105 macro. A lot of these lens are as well built and as sharp as anything I own. I have no complaints with any of my Nikon's except for price. If you demand the best IQ at the best price there are choices out there that near comparison. No offense take I just speak from a position of actual subjective comparison. There is a reason Nikon is more expensive but it is not necessarily build quality or IQ. My not so humble opinion :D :D :D

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

sbesaw wrote:

Dxo Labs rates new Tamron lens sharpest of all. I own Nikon 2.8 VR but would take a long look today at the Tamron and save $800

Ditto. ;)

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

I can't speak for the other brands, but I have the Sigma & am very happy with it on my D7100. I did research every comparison I could find before I bought it & the Nikon & the Sigma were so close in performance, I couldn't justify the extra dollars for the Nikon. However, a friend has just bought the new Tamron & it appears to be excellent quality. She is taking some great pics with it.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

sbesaw wrote:

I own Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 all 2.8. 24, 35, ... (show quote)

for outdoor shooting, the 70-200mm f 2.8 makes all the sense in the world. with the other two for indoor or low light shooting, f 1.8 would be a blessing. i'll bet that there are a lot of hoggers who would be willing to fork over the extra bucks.