Looking for mid-tele input.

[Lost Canadian]

Well, I'm starting the move away from the DX lenses I have, and am looking to full frame coverage lenses. I'm seeking some feedback on all mid range zoom tele's out there, in the (70/80 - 200/400) range.

Here's the challenge.

1) I don't want to break the bank, so new Nikon pro glass is almost certainly out. The $1000 range would be the ideal.
2) It has to be fast, I'd really like a constant aperture of 2.8.
3) Must be sharp. I'm so tired of my soft at 200mm, 18-200 VR.
4) Does not need to be optically stabalized, I work off a tripod/monopod a lot of the time.

The following have perked my interest but am open to other suggestions:

a) Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF

b) Sigma's newer APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM AF

c) Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO

Right now I'm leaning towards the new Sigma 70-200 APO. Thoughts?

 

[DiploStrat]

Never heard anything bad about the 80-200/2.8.

I own the 70-300/VR and like it a lot. I just love to hear the moaning when someone points out that it can be competitive with the 70-200/VR when stopped down a bit. Obviously, it does not meet your need for speed, but it is less expensive and I can see a difference between it an the 18-200/VR.

I am a mild Sigma fan, owning a 50-500 and lusting after the 150-500 because I can never use a tripod.

 

[bigreen505]

Not a lot of experience, but here are some thoughts.

a) Is a decent lens, though not in the same league as the new 70-200/2.8 VR, which is a stellar lens. Big difference to me is color rendition. This lens will hold resale value better than the Sigma.

b) Decent lens design but very poor QC, so you may want to test several samples and take the best. These lenses tend to have a pretty yellow/warm color rendition.

 

[tdesanto]

Well, I'm starting the move away from the DX lenses I have, and am looking to full frame coverage lenses. I'm seeking some feedback on all mid range zoom tele's out there, in the (70/80 - 200/400) range.

Here's the challenge.

1) I don't want to break the bank, so new Nikon pro glass is almost certainly out. The $1000 range would be the ideal.
2) It has to be fast, I'd really like a constant aperture of 2.8.
3) Must be sharp. I'm so tired of my soft at 200mm, 18-200 VR.
4) Does not need to be optically stabalized, I work off a tripod/monopod a lot of the time.

The following have perked my interest but am open to other suggestions:

a) Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF

b) Sigma's newer APO 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG HSM AF

c) Sigma 80-400mm F4.5-5.6 EX OS APO

Right now I'm leaning towards the new Sigma 70-200 APO. Thoughts?

Well, in order to meet criteria numbers 2 and 3, it probably needs to be Nikon pro glass. But, in order to meet number 1, it will have to be used.

There are a lot of nice used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lenses out there. I looked for you on KEH.com and found several 80-200 F/2.8 lenses in excellent condition for less than $900; however, I don't think any of them were AF-S lenses. AF-S is a feature you want in a lens like that if you can afford it.

Have you looked into used pricing for the 70-200 F/2.8 AF-S VR? If you can get that lens for around $1200, I'd highly recommend it. I paid $1700 and still think it was worth it.

At any rate, if you can find the 80-200 in AF-S for less than $900, I think you'll be really happy with it. The VR is great, but with today's digital bodies handling higher ISO's better and better each year, you may never miss it.

Good luck on the search.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Thanks for the thoughts in input guys. My reservations with the Nik's 70-200 VR, aside from price, is I've read a lot of complaints that while a superb lens on a DX camera the covering power is insufficient for FX and there is a ton of light falloff at the edges. My goal is to start the slow move away from DX, and have a nice set of glass that will work well with a D700.

I read some pro's using D3's went back to the last built Nik 80-200 for this very reason. I've also seen a few used AF models kicking around in the $1000 range which has me thinking...Hmmm.

The new Sigma 70-200 2.8 II is getting really good reviews. Much better then the good but not great first gen APO 70-200, but I'm aware of Sigma's reputation for QC. Thanks for the reminder Bill.

I should add that I also see Tamron has a newer 70-200mm F2.8, but while Tamron says it'll cover 35mm full frame I have not seen any reviews or samples of it used on such a camera be it film or digital. Anyone have experience with Tamron?

Decisions decisions....

 

[DiploStrat]

Need for Speed? Or DOF?

Kevin,

A thot.

What are you looking for - light or bokeh?

If light, the new generation of cameras are making 1200 ISO almost a "normal" speed. The hippo above was shot wide open (F6.3) at 500mm at ISO 1250 at dusk. This on a D200 - a much, much noisier camera than the new "3" generation or the D700. Bottom line, depending on what you are shooting, you may not need as fast a lens as you think. (I will, however, confess to owning the 24-70/2.8, so yes, I prefer fast glass.)

If bokeh, then, you need the 2.8 fro the shallow DOF. Which leads to a small comment on the now much maligned 70-200/VR. Yes, it is soft at FX and yes, it probably has a bit of light fall off. (See Ken Rockwell's pile of tests which, despite his claims, prove exactly this.) But then, if you are shooting candids, FX, wide open - this is actually good. Of course, if you want a tack sharp landscape, you need may prefer another lens. As, howerver, a lot of folks have gotten spooked by this lens's "poor" performance at FX - might they be available at better prices?

Offered FWIW.