Wrench Loc: NE CT

Looking for input. I cannot justify all the money for a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens. I’m not a pro nor close to that level however I am fussy if you will over quality. I also push myself to produce the best I am capable of regardless of whether it’s work or fun. Also after 40 years in the automotive industry I also have a tendency to favor OEM products. That said, because of what I like to photograph, nature or birds etc., I find myself out in early morning or late evening hours when light is hard to come by. So, I have been watching reviews for Sigma’s new 70-200 sport lens but also really like the older Nikon 80-200 af-d. I also would like to hear from anyone who has used the Nikon f4 version of 70-200 range. I am currently shooting with a D7200 but also watching the prices for an upgrade, possibly a D500 or even a D750 replacement. I’m concentrating on glass as it will be useable with or when I upgrade the body.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Not sure how far along you are in your selection process...or how much you have read and studied yet. But if you are looking at a D500, be aware that the sensor in that camera puts almost exactly the same demands on a lens as does the sensor in the D850, and except for overall image dimensions, gives almost identical results. To get the best results requires the best lens you can put on the camera. I have not used any of the lenses you mention except for the 70-200. It sounds like there may be a fundamental conflict between your stated fussiness versus not being able to justify the price of the 70-200. That being the case, I'd suggest that you rent a couple of your possible choices and see if you can tell the difference between (or among) them. I don't believe that anything that anyone can tell you is going to help make the choice that you will be happy with.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

The main reason it is so expensive is because of the f/2.8 all the way up to 200mm focal length - requiring a lens design that is very costly to manufacture. If you don't need such a fast tele lens, then no, there is probably not much justification for you to purchase it. There are other zoom lenses which will are not only less expensive, but also give much better optical performance than this one.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Look at the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC G2. Six year warranty, excellent performance, stabilized, $1200.

Wrench Loc: NE CT

Yes Larry, the D500 has similar pixel density as the D850 and rental of the prospects will be the final decision maker. I was looking for anyone who has owned/used these lenses to share their likes or dislikes. Thanks for the input.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Some of the newer 70-200 F2.8 lenses are quite excellent, even when used wide open. I also have an 80-200 F2.8 AF-D two ring design, which has been "good enough" for what I use it for. Tamron, Nikon's FL and Sigma's Sport all outperform the AF-D. Sharper, faster and more accurate focus, and a pure delight to work with. I have brief experience with the Nikkor and it blew me away. The Sigma is quite good - I borrowed a friend's copy and felt it was worth the cost. I have no experience with the Tamron.

Being fussy will cost ya . . .

For birds and wildlife a 70-200 without an extender is too short, and with a 1.4x could be used if there were no other options. I have been using a 600mmF4 for birds, and have recently acquired a Sigma Sport 150-600 and found the image quality at 600 very similar to what I was getting with the Nikkor prime, but I did have to kick up the ISO in crappy light. But still, being able to leave the tripod/gimbal head home and shoot hand held was a big plus for me. However, if I were to do it over, I would likely get the Tamron G2 version of that focal length - which is 2 lbs ligher and only costs around $1300 these days. If you want a lens that will do what you need for wildlife, I'd consider it. The image quality is good enough for "fussy" and the focal length will not leave you wishing you had a longer lens.

Generally speaking, the main advantage of F2.8 and faster lenses is not so much that you would use the lens at that aperture but more that once you reduced the aperture to something smaller, for greater depth of field perhaps, the lenses lose much of their optical flaws and weaknesses, and you still have an F4 or F5.6 lens. If you start at F4, you may not see optimum performance until F8. This is speaking very generally - individual lenses can be and are different.

Wrench Loc: NE CT

I have seen reviews and videos of this lens. It seems to suffer from reasonable focus breathing across the entire zoom range. I haven’t dropped it from my list just yet though. That is another rental prospect. Thanks for the suggestion.

Wrench Loc: NE CT

Being fussy will cost ya is an understatement. The 200mm length works for me most of the time. I shoot a lot from a kayak when vacationing and can close the distance pretty easily or wait for the next opportunity. Also the hummingbird feeders at home are only 8 to 10 feet away and after a couple weeks those little birds don’t care where I am as long as I keep the feeders full. I was wondering if the 80-200 d lens would perform or not. Sounds like your experience is good enough but not as good as other more recent lenses.

OutBack Loc: North Central Florida

I loved my old Nikon 55-200, more than my 300.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Favoring OEM lenses is great, but just look at the price differences. The Nikon is $2800 and the Tamron 70-200 G2 @ $1200. The Tamron is the #1 prosumer 70-200 currently on the market. I carry one with me on photo trips and get unbelievable results.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

After a lot of research, I went with the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 for my D7200. It's a bit short for wildlife / birding on its own, but Tamron does have 1.4x (1 f-stop loss) and 2.0x (2 f-stop loss) teleconverters that are compatible with that lens. The x2, 400mm (600mm equivalent) will work fine for wildlife / birding. The image quality of the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2 is excellent after tuning. I have since then bought a couple of FX bodies and the lens is excellent on both my FX and DX bodies.

I also have a Tamron 18-400mm f3.5-6.3 super zoom. It is relatively light, compact and, IMHO, a great value. It is not at the quality level of the 70-200mm G2, but I am getting good results with it after tuning.

In any case, rent one for a week to play with before you buy. Suggest LensRentals.com

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

So you want to shoot birds... In flight? Really? That my friend is likely one of the longest and most challenging learning curves to pursue... word.

Ok I only shoot birds between commercial assignments when I'm bored... Keep in mind that there is virtually no money in this genre (except for the equipment vendors who want to empty your bank account).

btw, birding focal lengths start at 300mm and go up... a 70-200mm isn't going to yield very compelling results... and the moment you attach a tele converter it's at f/4 or greater...

Nope... look at a 300mm f/2.8 prime at minimum... you'll also need a monopod with a very good and easily adjustable head...

Below is an example of Catalog Fashion (Millinery) with a 300mm f/2.8 prime and also a BIF at 300mm f/6.4 (f/2.8 wouldn't work owing to shallow DOF)... I needed the entire bird...

Hope this helps wrench... all the best on your journey...
.

300mm f/2.8 prime (at f/3.2) 1/250 with a monopod

(Download)

300mm at f/6.4 (f/2.8 lacked adequate DOF)

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Birds In Flight or Birds In Bush?

Large birds or small birds? {large are spectacular; small are quick}

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Photography is first and foremost about optics. If birds are your forte, based on what you said, you need long fast glass. Not cheap glass. And F4 is not fast. The 70-200 f2.8 on your camera is 105-350 equivalent Full Frame field of view. Food for thought.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

I opted for the Tamron 24-70 G2 with VC over the Nikon cousins. No regrets at all. The Tamron is an excellent lens for a lot less $$.