Steve'sDigicams

LGWGM · Mar 16, 2011, 4:08 PM

Hi guys, I'm looking at the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII for my next purchase and would like to get some opinions from the pros here before pulling the trigger.
What are your opinions guys, which is better for this specific focal range Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, Tamron, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (not sure if there's a stabilized version though)?

Any suggestion is greatly appreciated.

EDIT:
I also found the wide spread issue on the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, do the newer ones still suffer this problem?

here's a photo

jack55 · Mar 17, 2011, 11:00 AM

I'm watching this. Curious also.
Also considering the Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR

zombz · Mar 17, 2011, 11:17 AM

most of the reviews ive been seeing is the nikon vr2 70-200 is a great lens if u have the cash laying around but ive also read some good reviews of the sigma 70-200 2.8hsm2 which im picking up in a couple weeks for my d3000

LGWGM · Mar 17, 2011, 11:33 AM

zombz,

Mind to share some thoughts why you chose the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 hsm2 over the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD IF Macro?

Thanks

zombz · Mar 17, 2011, 11:40 AM

i just had seen more reviews of the sigma and got a good deal on it

zombz · Mar 17, 2011, 12:27 PM

this guy is really cool and seems fun and did a review on the sigma 70-200 2.8 here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdYWI...eature=fvwkrel

LGWGM · Mar 20, 2011, 8:22 PM

Yea its fun watching and worth viewing too.

Thanks

zombz · Mar 20, 2011, 9:12 PM

no problem he is very helpful i think and he is fun to watch

JohnG · Mar 21, 2011, 6:55 AM

As with most lens decisions, it isn't clear cut.
The VR II is the best available for Nikon but you pay for that.
The tamron is fairly sharp (sharper than the sigma) but it is slow to focus - so not good for sports work.
The sigma non-OS is less sharp than the tamron but faster to focus so better for sports.
I haven't seen any field reports on the Sigma OS version - so it's still a bit of an unknown whether performance is up to the price sigma is charging.

What specific photography do you need the lens for?

jack55 · Mar 21, 2011, 9:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnG

As with most lens decisions, it isn't clear cut.
The VR II is the best available for Nikon but you pay for that.
The tamron is fairly sharp (sharper than the sigma) but it is slow to focus - so not good for sports work.
The sigma non-OS is less sharp than the tamron but faster to focus so better for sports.
I haven't seen any field reports on the Sigma OS version - so it's still a bit of an unknown whether performance is up to the price sigma is charging.

What specific photography do you need the lens for?

Nikkor lenses are always considerably better than the after-market lenses such as Tamron or Sigma. Those are for those who don't want to spend the extra dollars for Nikkor. As usual, you get what you pay for.

Mar 16, 2011, 4:08 PM	#1
LGWGM Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 49	Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII or? Hi guys, I'm looking at the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII for my next purchase and would like to get some opinions from the pros here before pulling the trigger. What are your opinions guys, which is better for this specific focal range Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, Tamron, Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (not sure if there's a stabilized version though)? Any suggestion is greatly appreciated. EDIT: I also found the wide spread issue on the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, do the newer ones still suffer this problem? here's a photo __________________ Nikon D7000 \| Nikkor 18-105mm \| SB-700 \| Nikkor 70-300 VR Last edited by LGWGM; Mar 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM.

Mar 17, 2011, 11:00 AM	#2
jack55 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 968	I'm watching this. Curious also. Also considering the Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR __________________ http://www.moskovita-photography.com/ Nikon D7500 w/Nikkor AF-S 200-500mm F/5.6E ED VR Nikon d5300 w/Tamron 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 / 2 Nikon SB-800 Bogen/Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod & mono-pod Apple iPhone 8 plus

Mar 17, 2011, 11:33 AM	#4
LGWGM Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 49	zombz, Mind to share some thoughts why you chose the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 hsm2 over the Tamron SP AF 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD IF Macro? Thanks __________________ Nikon D7000 \| Nikkor 18-105mm \| SB-700 \| Nikkor 70-300 VR

Mar 20, 2011, 8:22 PM	#7
LGWGM Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 49	Yea its fun watching and worth viewing too. Thanks __________________ Nikon D7000 \| Nikkor 18-105mm \| SB-700 \| Nikkor 70-300 VR

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Mar 17, 2011, 11:17 AM	#3
zombz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: wolcott NY Posts: 437	most of the reviews ive been seeing is the nikon vr2 70-200 is a great lens if u have the cash laying around but ive also read some good reviews of the sigma 70-200 2.8hsm2 which im picking up in a couple weeks for my d3000

Mar 17, 2011, 11:40 AM	#5
zombz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: wolcott NY Posts: 437	i just had seen more reviews of the sigma and got a good deal on it

Mar 17, 2011, 12:27 PM	#6
zombz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: wolcott NY Posts: 437	this guy is really cool and seems fun and did a review on the sigma 70-200 2.8 here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdYWI...eature=fvwkrel

Mar 20, 2011, 9:12 PM	#8
zombz Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: wolcott NY Posts: 437	no problem he is very helpful i think and he is fun to watch

Mar 21, 2011, 6:55 AM	#9
JohnG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 8,529	As with most lens decisions, it isn't clear cut. The VR II is the best available for Nikon but you pay for that. The tamron is fairly sharp (sharper than the sigma) but it is slow to focus - so not good for sports work. The sigma non-OS is less sharp than the tamron but faster to focus so better for sports. I haven't seen any field reports on the Sigma OS version - so it's still a bit of an unknown whether performance is up to the price sigma is charging. What specific photography do you need the lens for?