Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Hey Golf I was looking for a 70-200 to use primarly out doors in good light. After extensive research I settled on the Nikon 70-200f/4. I got a "like new" from MPB for $560. I can't tell it from new and I am very happy with it

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Fantastic lens!

MidnightManiac

I'm a Canon shooter and shoot sports...The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens for indoor sports, very sharp...For outdoor prefer my Canon 70-200 f4...Favorite walk around lens is the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. Like all 3, all are great quality and have no complaints...

Golfstitch Loc: Downingtown,PA

Thank you.

Golfstitch Loc: Downingtown,PA

Thanks for the info.

olddutch Loc: Beloit, Wisconsin

For my Cannon 5d I bought a 70-200 cannon lens as I was thinking it was the Len to have.. I do a lot of Airshows and some Landscapes.. With my new lens I was either too close or too far away... I bought a Tamron 18-400 and that is my goto lens, though I have it on my 7d... At the airshows I didn't like changing lenses all the time for fear of getting dirt on the sensor.. Best wishes...

b top gun

I have both the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 non VR and the latest iteration Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR, used both on my Nikon D7100 and D850. Then came the Z8; took it and the D850 to Alaska last September; was very pleased with the images from both cameras. I liked being able to swap out lenses before heading out for the day. At the present time I have no intention of getting Z mount lenses as long as what I have are delivering. I like IBIS when using my 24-70 on the Z8.

My personal overall experience with Tamron lenses for Nikon bodies is not that good; still have a Tamron 18-270, used it for my first trip to the Pac NW, some shots were good, others were not sharp. Had a Tamron 150-600 for a while; it liked to wander and was a challenge getting focus lock even under the best conditions; maybe 60% of the shots with that lenses were sharp. Tamron 24-70 G2...returned it to B&H a week after it arrived. I use only Nikkor lenses on Nikon bodies now.

I have shot video and time lapse with the D850 and video with the Z8 using both lenses; they take care of my needs nicely right now. I would consider the Nikkor 180-600 Z mount should I get into wildlife; until then I might rent it to try on my Z8.

Golfstitch Loc: Downingtown,PA

Good info. I have decided to stick with the Nikon.

Ruthlessrider

I’ve been shooting for a fairly long time, but never considered myself as technically proficient as many on this site, so pleased forgive me for my question that may seem technically naive to some of you.

This discussion raised a question concerning F4 vs f2.8. In today’s higher end cameras no matter who the maker of the camera is it has been my experience that if I am shooting a lens in relatively low light conditions that my f4 will be handicapped by, raising the ISO will extend the use fo the lens with little handicap. With cost difference of around $1200 or more between, for example a 70-200 mm f4 lens vs a 70-200mm f2.8 lens shooting as high as ISO12600 is there really any advantage to spending an extra $1200? I shoot Canon with a 5D IV and R5, and I find very little garbage at high ISO in either camera.

btbg

Multiple advantages to f2.8. 1) less depth of field which allows greater bluring of the background, something that can be critical in sports photography in particular. 2) sure you can push your iso with an f4 lens but you are losing a full stop of light. I frequently shoot at iso 12,800 at f 2.8. Do you really want to raise your iso higher than that. 3) The lower fstop can be critical in night photography. If you are shooting the milky way for example noise is a seriius problem as it detracts from the stars. You can not correct for that by just extending the exposure time as that will lead to motion in the stars. Ifbyou dont shoot wide ooen regularly, dont shoot certain kinds of nigjt photography and do not need a high shutter speed in low light tjen an f4 lens may indeed be a lower cost alternative for you but if you need the fastest shutter speed you can get, need a blurred background, etc then an f2.8 lens is not only worth the extra money it is the difference vetween getting the shot or comong home empty handed.

Ruthlessrider

Thanks for the reply. As someone who seldom shoots anything but landscape, I’m usually not forced to think of those things on a regular basis, so thanks again for taking the time to teach. I do love learning.

btbg

You are welcome. You probably dont need an f2.8 lens. Since I make my living with sports I have a 24-70 f2.8 two 70-200f2.8s and a 400 f2.8. No need for most people to spend that kind of money. Many less expensive options for tje average shooter. Plus you have the added benefit of carrying less weight around.

spaceytracey Loc: East Glacier Park, MT

I've had great luck buying from Ebay. In particular, Map Camera from Japan.

LouV Loc: Juno Beach, FL

I have the Tamron for use with my D810. I’ve been very happy with it. I bought it from a local dealer. If you don’t have a good dealer in your area, B&H is very reputable and offers excellent service.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Don't be locked into "like new", as long as the glass is good, it doesn't matter.
Lesser grades work just as well as "like new", and you will save a lot of money.

MPB and Used Photo Pro are excellent sources. B&H will not charge tax when you use their credit card.