| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/30/2011 05:50:03 PM · #1 |
I am looking to buy a 70-200 2.8 lens and I have it down to 3 choices. Please give me your opinions.
1. New Nikon 70-200 VRll ($1900 if I trade a lens in that I haven't used in years)
2. New Sigma 70-200 OS HSM ($1500 if I trade the lens as mentioned above)
3. Used Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRl in great shape ($1100)
Which one would you go with and why?
I am planning to use the lens for portrait and wedding work on a D300 and a D90.
Thanks in advance for your help.
|
|
|
|
01/30/2011 06:13:49 PM · #2 |
| I'd go for the used nikon. You'll want VR, and as far as I know, there's no image quality differences to speak of between the new and old 70-200. But the new is better for full frame cameras. |
|
|
|
01/30/2011 06:27:49 PM · #3 |
| Definitely one of the Nikon ones. Both are excellent, and as long as you are not going full frame in the foreseeable future the VRI should be fine. |
|
|
|
01/30/2011 06:38:57 PM · #4 |
I know the sigma 70-200 is a fantastic lens. I have a friend who owns it and shoots with a D300s.
Having said that, I have the Nikon 70-200 VRII, and to be honest, has probably left my camera only a bunch of times in the months I've owned it.
This lens is amazing, and if only $400 more, the conclussion shouldn't be difficult to be drawn.
Particularly if you are shooting weddings with it; not because the lens is faster focusing than the sigma (which might be; I don't know), not because it's built quality (which might be the same on the other two), but because if you're making money out of your business, the extra $400 should be paid off in no time.
And perhaps in a few months from now, you'll be sitting in your room holding $400 and thinking to yourself how you should have invested a bit more.
Having said that, I don't know how the VRI and VRII compare.Perhaps the new lens isn't worth an extra $800..
All I can say is that I love my lens and am glad I got it, and not any alternatives.
If you're doing portrait work, I'll suggest getting a dedicated portrait lens, such as an 85mm ..
Moving around a studio with a 70-200 2.8 lens will be..... uncomfortable, to say the least.
** Note on VR **
Whilst Vibration reduction is a fantastic feature when shooting static subjects, it's not going to make much of a difference when you're at weddings.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 11:03:25 AM · #5 |
Thanks everyone for the input. Now, with the recent price drop on the Sigma lens (now $1399 which means I can pick it up for $1199) is the VRl still a better choice?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 11:35:45 AM · #6 |
| absolutely the first version of the 70-200 VR Nikkor... many of my friends, after they buyed the VR II version, they told me that the first version was really better... (I have the 80-200 and i do not change it with the VR version because i like too much how is sharp but with a good bokeh). |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 12:37:19 PM · #7 |
| I really like my 70-200 VRI, great lens, I have a friend who bought the II version, it seemed a little bulkier, though a touch shorter in physical length. The VRI has a slight vingette at 70 which I usually like, but it's easily removed if you don't. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 10:26:19 PM · #8 |
Have a look through Ken Rockwell's reviews of all three lenses.
I know the guy shouldn't be taken as be all word of wisdom, but he'll probably be the only guy who has had the chance to use all three lenses.....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:25:40 AM EDT.
