70-200mm - Which one?

[Brendo09]

Okay, so I'm relatively new and bought both a Nikon d5200 and d3100, and already have three kit lenses (2 x 18mm-55mm and 1 x 55mm-300mm) plus a AF-S 35mm f1.8 and a manual 50mm f1.8.

I'm keen to thin the herd and stick the 35mm on the D3100 for good, and then stick the 70-200 on the D5200 and leave it there.

My photo's are usually of landscapes, in the daylight, or kids and pets, again in the daylight. Anything like a party or dinner or indoors can just use the 35mm.

The question I have is whether it's really worth going to the f2.8 versions from the manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron and Nikkor). The f4 versions of the lenses, with respective optical stabiliser, vibration reduction, vibration compensation, should be plenty for what I do... right?

[ameerat42]

Try it and find out.

But your "indoors [with the] 35mm" might leave you a bit squashed for space (ie FOV). You
might find yourself reaching for the 18-55.

Does the 50/1.8 ever get a look-in? Would you ever take a portrait indoors? It would be good'
for that.

Thin the herd after you've tried them ALL out.

[Cage]

The question I have is whether it's really worth going to the f2.8 versions from the manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron and Nikkor). The f4 versions of the lenses, with respective optical stabiliser, vibration reduction, vibration compensation, should be plenty for what I do... right?

Apart from the obvious advantage of the f2.8 aperture, the f2.8 variants of the lens you mentioned are of a pro/semi-pro level, with a better quality build, weather sealing etc.

I have both the Tamron f2.8 24-70mm, and the f2.8 70-200mm, and can recommend them highly.

[Glenda]

I'm also a big fan of my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 - as photography is purely a hobby for me I couldn't justify the cost of the Nikon version. Personally I would want wider than 35mm for landscapes. I also have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which is also a good lens and would capably double for outdoor landscapes and indoor party/dinner shots.

[Gazza]

Thanks for the useful post, Brendon - :th3:
I've been thinking about a 70 - 200 for sometime, so I'll be following what others say here :D



Cheers ... :beer_mug:

[Cargo]

I have the Nikon 70-200 F4, its on my camera most of the time & I love it.
Something to consider is the weight ..... I'm only little with small hands and find the Nikon manageable now, it was a bit of shock when i first got it though !!

Cargo

[feathers]

Yes, l'm with Cargo and others. Love my tammy 70 - 200 f2.8. I've been a prime lens user mostly, and was surprised how good the image quality is from this lens:th3:
The build quality is good too:th3: Cheers.

- - - Updated - - -

Oooops!.... didn't read Cargos thread properly:o:lol2: still, we both love 70 - 200s :nod:

[Brendo09]

So the general consensus is...

The f2.8 version is great, people love it.

The f4 version is great, people love it.

The 17-50mm / 24-70mm lens range is a good all rounder, people love it.

Give them all a try and then see.

:banana: :confused013

Ultimately I'm trying to talk myself out of wanting to spend $2000 on a hobby I have only just got interested in, when if my history is anything to be relied upon, I"ll be onto something new in 24 months.

I do agree about the 35mm not being wide enough for landscapes, but then do I really want to... what do I really want to do? Man, this was supposed to be something fun! I'm analysing my life away:lol:

[Brendo09]

I played around yesterday with the 55-300 kit lens in very bright sunlight. Photo's came out looking okay from 200mm to full length, but zooming in on the computer screen they just weren't very finely detailed. IS that referring to a lens being 'soft'?

Anyway, I thought I'd try it out just to see if I could get by with it. Ideally I'd like to get more animals shots so getting a decent reach and a crisp shot is important.

[Cage]

I played around yesterday with the 55-300 kit lens in very bright sunlight. Photo's came out looking okay from 200mm to full length, but zooming in on the computer screen they just weren't very finely detailed. IS that referring to a lens being 'soft'?

Unfortunately, yes. :(

Kit lens, generally, will produce great 'Happy Snaps', however most will reveal deficiencies if you start pixel peeping, ie looking at their output at 100%.

A 70-200mm f2.8 sounds ideal for you, and as you also mention landscapes may I suggest the Samyang 14mm f2.8. Well though of lens at a very reasonable price, and it's chipped for your Nikon.

[ameerat42]

No. It just refers to the image being soft. The reason could be anything, from lens to focus, processing...

Post up an image for fuller examination, with Exif intact if you can.

[Cage]

No. It just refers to the image being soft. The reason could be anything, from lens to focus, processing...

Post up an image for fuller examination, with Exif intact if you can.

We're both probably right Am.

There are certainly a multitude of factors that can affect the sharpness of an image, but generally a Pro/SemiPro lens will beat a kit lens almost every time, all factors being equal.

[Brendo09]

Unfortunately, yes. :(

Kit lens, generally, will produce great 'Happy Snaps', however most will reveal deficiencies if you start pixel peeping, ie looking at their output at 100%.

A 70-200mm f2.8 sounds ideal for you, and as you also mention landscapes may I suggest the Samyang 14mm f2.8. Well though of lens at a very reasonable price, and it's chipped for your Nikon.

Ken Rockwell doesn't like it... he gave the optics only two out of five potatoes. :D

Looks like I'm going to have to do some fundraising. Anyone want to buy a guitar or two?

[I @ M]

Ken Rockwell doesn't like it... he gave the optics only two out of five potatoes. :D

Looks like I'm going to have to do some fundraising. Anyone want to buy a guitar or two?

Ken Rockwell has in all likelihood never even had the lens in his hands. :nod:

[ameerat42]

Kev. Up above. My "No" was in reply to the OP's post. Just timing, as you posted just before I did.

[Cage]

Only comment on KR is that he comes across as very opinionated.

Have a look at these reviews:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621

http://www.lenstip.com/239.1-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Introduction.html

Some real world users: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/505
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Samyang-14mm-F2.8-ED-AS-IF-UMC_lens604.html

There is also the well thought of Tamron 10-24mm if you think KR's word is gospel.

[Brendo09]

The Ken Rockwell comment was tongue in cheek. I'm not in any way saying your thoughts on the Samyang lenses were out or line, sorry if that's how it came across.

That has, though, opened up another door into the rabbit hole. So many lenses...

[Cage]

The Ken Rockwell comment was tongue in cheek. I'm not in any way saying your thoughts on the Samyang lenses were out or line, sorry if that's how it came across.

That has, though, opened up another door into the rabbit hole. So many lenses...

No offence taken at all. ;)

So you're looking for a lens in the Looking Glass room huh? :lol2:

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

And don't ask the Mad Hatter for advice either. :lol:

[feathers]

I have the samyang 14mm, and absolutely love it.:th3:

[arthurking83]

I played around yesterday with the 55-300 kit lens in very bright sunlight. Photo's came out looking okay from 200mm to full length, but zooming in on the computer screen they just weren't very finely detailed. IS that referring to a lens being 'soft'?

....

The most probable answer to this is No!
The answer could also be a yes too, but the probability of this is lower.

Main reason for those conflicting answers is that we have no idea on how you "played around" with this lens.
Did it achieve focus? did you shoot primarily at high ISO ro slow shutter speed.
The fact that you shot in bright light is a clue to the answer being yes, but there is no certainty of this, as we don't know if what you focused on was in shade or a darker area.

The other aspect to images not having detail in them in bright light, that many folks seem to forget is that exposure plays a large part of what we call sharpness(or detail) and that an over exposed image always looks less detailed in the over exposed area .. so was the image very bright ..


the correct answer to the question is so variable and the only real way to help you determine a proper answer is as Am said .. post some sample images of what you shot with the lens, and leave exif in tact, or at least post the main exif info details too.

ps. from what I know of this lens, as I was looking to get one for my son(who always complains of not enough zoom! :rolleyes:) it's OK at 300mm but needs to be set to f/6.3 or f/8 to give you some contrast in the image. You'd expect that tho of such a lens design. The more 'zoom' (focal length ratio) a lens has, the less likely it will have good contrast rendering mainly at the long end.

Set to f/8 and give the resultant image some USM and a bit more contrast, and for many folks this would be enough IQ.

I decided not to get the lens, only because it was too expensive for what it really was(I think they're a lot cheaper now after a couple of years in production).

Nikon's 70-300VR lens is a lot better in IQ terms at 300mm(you'd expect that to be true considering the focal length zoom factor too). They seem to sell for around $500-600 I think.

[Mark L]

Ultimately I'm trying to talk myself out of wanting to spend $2000 on a hobby I have only just got interested in, when if my history is anything to be relied upon, I"ll be onto something new in 24 months.


So you don't have to pay top dollar for new equipment. A good lens is still a good lens. 2nd hand from someone that's had enough of photography and is wanting to move onto the next hobby. :) Saves a few dollars and loss quite as much for the good lens when ..... but hang on, you've not gunna sell anything. You can move onto your next hobby and still do photography. ;)
Spend as much as you can afford on the lens. Regardless of what is said they do make a difference to the photos we take. The better photos you can take soon means you'll stay with this photo gig longer.

[J.davis]

Any lens made for nikon will fit and there are some good ones that are lots of years old that will do the job. I have an entomologist friend that uses an old Tokina prime on a D800 and she gets good results.

[danny]

Buy the 70-200 Tamron. You will not look back if you do. It is a great lens well worth the money.

Some may argue that it is a little too long on a crop sensor body, but in reality it will be great if you are taking shots of the kids doing sport/activities on a stage. You've also got the 35mm for when you want to shoot in inclosed areas/rooms.

cheers

[GourmetSaint]

+1 on the Tamron

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[John Humpo]

I also can throw in my 2 bobs worth for the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 Di Vc Usd only had it a couple of mths but can vouch for its sharpness, great Bokeh, colour reproduction, fast focus, I love it & yes it has a bit of weight but that's a given with any of these f2.8 lenses, you get used to it.

[MissionMan]

+1 for the Tamsin. I have the Nikon but in hindsite, I probably would have been better off buying a Tammy and another couple of lenses for the price.