Decisions, decisions. I need some lens buying advice!

[annnewjerz]

Well folks, here I am again, in the same position I find myself way too often...I need some advice on which lens(es) to buy.

I won't say how just yet, but I have come into a bit of money. Combined with Christmas money that I typically get each year, I have about $1500 to spend and I want to spend it in the new year (yes, I'm actually going to sit on it a while, especially since I don't even have the Christmas money yet ).

I really want to buy a fixed aperture telephoto lens, but am having a hard time deciding which to get. My options are:

A. The Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (no VR) along with a fast walk-around lens (like maybe the Tamron 17-50 or 28-75, or the Sigma 18-50 or 24-70---all f/2.8)

or

B. A used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

I have seen a bunch of pics taken with the 80-200mm f/2.8 and have been really impressed. It looks sharp, with the f/2.8 I could get a fast enough shutter that maybe the lack of VR wouldn't make a difference and the main selling point is that it's less expensive.

However, the 70-200mm f/2.8 is a lens I've lusted over for some time now. I like that it has VR for shooting at the long end and is an extra 10mm wide, but I could probably only afford a gently used copy. Yes, I could save for an extra few months and purchase it new, but I'm really not all that interested in spending $2,000 on a lens at this point.

Thoughts? I'm leaning towards the 80-200 f/2.8 and faster walkaround lens, but any input would be appreciated---especially from anyone who has any of the lenses mentioned above.

Thanks!
Ann

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Since you already mentioned Sigma, you might want to try their 70-200 f2.8. Its $799 with free shipping from B & H and Adorama. Its their Ex lens with HSM. I believe they also have a non-HSM version.

 

[My2Girls66]

Option A sounds like it would be a good set up and in your price range.

I've been debating getting the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for a while.
It has gotten some good reviews and for just over $400......I could buy it with X-Mas/B-Day money very soon

Nikon Cafe has some reviews on lots of different lenses in one of their forums.
Happy deciding

 

[scoot241]

I'm not sure what to tell you; I know what I really want is a 70-200mm f/2.8. Canon's is quite expensive ($1300), so I've also been looking at Sigma's. I'm not sure if I want to get Sigma's yet as it has been notorious for front-focusing (why can't Sigma get this right?). The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is $1900, so that one's probably out of my range for a long while, even a used copy.

I've also thought about going for a 70-200 f/4.0, but I think I'm still going to want the f/2.8.

 

[KarenAylwood]

I'd go for a used 70-200 f/2.8 VR if you can find a good/reliable one. I'd love a fast telephoto (one of the gaps in my lens collection as well).

If I had that money I'd get the Canon 24-105 f/4.0L... but I'm a Canon girl. The 24-70 f/2.8 is another along the same lines but faster (the Sigma you mentioned).

And why can't you people stop posting stuff like this? Someone posts about wanting the Sigma 30mm and I decide I need one... then you post about ordering the Tokina 11-16mm and I look it up and HAVE to have it. My wallet can't take anymore

 

[WDWFigment]

I will be interested to hear what you do. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR has been in my cross hairs for a while, but it is cost prohibitive, at least for a couple of years. I would consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, as the reviews seem fairly positive.

What I probably should do is just learn to use the gear I have; my abilities need to grow into my current gear before I buy new stuff.

I would say I need to find a new hobby that doesn't involve spending so much money, but I know there is a way to spend money on anything. Heck, back when reading was my biggest "hobby", I collected expensive collector's versions.

 

[YesDear]

You know I have the 70-200 2.8vr. Having carried it for 9 days straight in on my recent trip I fell further in love with it. Both are great lens. It is my understanding the 80-200 is a push pull zoom and the 70-200 is a twist. I prefer the twist. The new 70-200 will cause some good used older versions to show up. That is the direction I would go!

 

[wenrob]

Since you already mentioned Sigma, you might want to try their 70-200 f2.8. Its $799 with free shipping from B & H and Adorama. Its their Ex lens with HSM. I believe they also have a non-HSM version.

This is the route I plan on taking eventually along with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. So, of course I think that's way you should go Ann!

I've been debating getting the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for a while.
It has gotten some good reviews and for just over $400......I could buy it with X-Mas/B-Day money very soon

You wouldn't regret it, mine hardly ever leaves my camera. I big, fluffy *heart* it. If I eventually get the two lenses above along w/my Tammy & Dirty Thirty I think I'd be set. Of course I'd have to move on to bigger and better flash and other stuff...

 

[annnewjerz]

Since you already mentioned Sigma, you might want to try their 70-200 f2.8. Its $799 with free shipping from B & H and Adorama. Its their Ex lens with HSM. I believe they also have a non-HSM version.

I've looked at the Sigma before and have read a few accounts of front focusing issues. That being said, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is said to have the same problem in a lot of copies and I had no issue with that, so who knows.

Option A sounds like it would be a good set up and in your price range.

I've been debating getting the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for a while.
It has gotten some good reviews and for just over $400......I could buy it with X-Mas/B-Day money very soon

Nikon Cafe has some reviews on lots of different lenses in one of their forums.
Happy deciding

Thanks for the opinion. Option A is really what I'm leaning towards since this is just a hobby, after all---so I don't really need a $2,000 lens, do I? If you decide to get the Tammy, let me know what ya think!

I'm not sure what to tell you; I know what I really want is a 70-200mm f/2.8. Canon's is quite expensive ($1300), so I've also been looking at Sigma's. I'm not sure if I want to get Sigma's yet as it has been notorious for front-focusing (why can't Sigma get this right?). The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is $1900, so that one's probably out of my range for a long while, even a used copy.

I've also thought about going for a 70-200 f/4.0, but I think I'm still going to want the f/2.8.

A. I've heard the same front focusing problems about the Sigma, which is why I am shying away from it---I just don't have the patience to deal with getting it serviced when it's brand new. B. I would probably be happy with the 70-200 f/4, if only Nikon made one.

And why can't you people stop posting stuff like this? Someone posts about wanting the Sigma 30mm and I decide I need one... then you post about ordering the Tokina 11-16mm and I look it up and HAVE to have it. My wallet can't take anymore

You can't possibly be talking about my posts specifically. There are LOADS of people on here that are constantly looking for lenses, not just me, I tell ya!!

I will be interested to hear what you do. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR has been in my cross hairs for a while, but it is cost prohibitive, at least for a couple of years. I would consider the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, as the reviews seem fairly positive.

What I probably should do is just learn to use the gear I have; my abilities need to grow into my current gear before I buy new stuff.

I would say I need to find a new hobby that doesn't involve spending so much money, but I know there is a way to spend money on anything. Heck, back when reading was my biggest "hobby", I collected expensive collector's versions.

That's the thing, I could probably afford the 70-200 in another year or two, but for the (possibly) incremental difference in quality over the 80-200, do I really want to wait another year? I think not. I wish I could just force myself to put it on credit and buy it now. Stupid fiscally responsible feelings!!

You know I have the 70-200 2.8vr. Having carried it for 9 days straight in on my recent trip I fell further in love with it. Both are great lens. It is my understanding the 80-200 is a push pull zoom and the 70-200 is a twist. I prefer the twist. The new 70-200 will cause some good used older versions to show up. That is the direction I would go!

I knooooooooooooow, you love it, blah blah blah. Darn you, John!! The 80-200 AF-D two-ring version that I'm looking at is actually a twist zoom, I wouldn't get the push/pull version, just seems like too much of a hassle. Other than that...thoughts?

 

[annnewjerz]

This is the route I plan on taking eventually along with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. So, of course I think that's way you should go Ann!

You wouldn't regret it, mine hardly ever leaves my camera. I big, fluffy *heart* it. If I eventually get the two lenses above along w/my Tammy & Dirty Thirty I think I'd be set. Of course I'd have to move on to bigger and better flash and other stuff...

Sorry! Missed you somehow in my multi-quote. So---you have the Tamrom 24-70, eh? I'm torn between whether I would get the 17-50 or 24-70, not really sure if I would get more use out of the wider or longer end. Hmmmmmm....

 

[boBQuincy]

Bite the bullet, kick in the extra $$$, and get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR! The extra $$$ will seem like nothing in a few years when you look back at the photos you got!

Besides, that's in the true spirit of this board!

 

[annnewjerz]

Bite the bullet, kick in the extra $$$, and get the 70-200 f/2.8 VR! The extra $$$ will seem like nothing in a few years when you look back at the photos you got!

Besides, that's in the true spirit of this board!

Bob, do you have the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? If it's the non-IS---you need to hush yourself and quit trying to convince me to spend more money!!

 

[wenrob]

Sorry! Missed you somehow in my multi-quote. So---you have the Tamrom 24-70, eh? I'm torn between whether I would get the 17-50 or 24-70, not really sure if I would get more use out of the wider or longer end. Hmmmmmm....

The 28-70 it's my go to lens and I probably shoot at f/2.8 80% of the time. I sometimes miss the wider end which is why the 17-50 will be my next lens. Inside is where I miss it most but outside just a matter of taking a few steps back. You use the Sigma 30 so often you probably wouldn't even miss the wide end though.

 

[boBQuincy]

Bob, do you have the 70-200 f/4 IS or non-IS? If it's the non-IS---you need to hush yourself and quit trying to convince me to spend more money!!

Busted!

I actually bought mine long before the IS version was out. It's not the $$$ that keeps me from getting a f/2.8 now, it's the size and weight. I would probably rarely carry it.
However, I have four dSLR bodies (and DW has two) so we do try to hold our end up and practice what we preach.

 

[annnewjerz]

Busted!

I actually bought mine long before the IS version was out. It's not the $$$ that keeps me from getting a f/2.8 now, it's the size and weight. I would probably rarely carry it.
However, I have four dSLR bodies (and DW has two) so we do try to hold our end up and practice what we preach.

So, now that I am done busting your chops---you obviously don't have IS on the 200 end of your lens. How big of a deal do you think that is? The only reason I'm even considering the 70-200 is because it has VR. Is the lack of VR going to be a big deal or will fast enough shutter speeds make up for not having it (for the most part)? I guess I could also buy a monopod if I really had to.

 

[Phil'sFrontier]

70-200 because it has VR

 

[YesDear]

Sorry to blah, blah,blah. I agree with Bob. I think you will be happier over time with a used 70-200 vr than the 80-200.

 

[annnewjerz]

Sorry to blah, blah,blah. I agree with Bob. I think you will be happier over time with a used 70-200 vr than the 80-200.

Well then...it's settled, want to give me a good deal on yours?

 

[boBQuincy]

So, now that I am done busting your chops---you obviously don't have IS on the 200 end of your lens. How big of a deal do you think that is? The only reason I'm even considering the 70-200 is because it has VR. Is the lack of VR going to be a big deal or will fast enough shutter speeds make up for not having it (for the most part)? I guess I could also buy a monopod if I really had to.

If you are going to carry a monopod at all times (and I do) then perhaps VR is not that big a deal. My guess is most people won't carry and use a monopod so VR is a good idea. Except for a really bright day it is not often we can use shutter speeds fast enough to really steady a 200mm lens.

A SLR shutter really only travels at up to 1/200 anyway so VR/monopod/something is good to have for a long lens.

 

[Groucho]

I've heard a lot of very good things about the new Tamron 70-200mm F2.8, also.

Don't forget about the Tokina 50-135mm F2.8 or Sigma 50-150mm F2.8, either; you give up a little range on the far end but gain usable range on the narrow end and the lens is much lighter and smaller. I've got the Pentax 50-135mm F2.8 which is a twin inside to the Tokina and I'd rather have the 50-70mm range and lose the 135-200 range plus it's much easier to carry. You can always crop but you can't go wider!