UKC

Had a quick go with the Tamron but the focus was too slow. Anyone got experience with the Sigma, Nikkor 70-200 or any of the 80-200s of which there seem to be about 7 different versions.

The nikkor 70-200 i'm guessing is the best but it's a load of money, that said it does work well with tele converters I gather.

In reply to Gfunk:
I've got the nikon G (I think), basically the one with auto focus and a push / pull zoom.
You can get the pre-vr model, ie twist zoom + af for around £400 on flea bay.
Mine is great, really really sharp, and it looks the doggies wotsits

In reply to Gfunk: I bought this lens on Ebay and its great

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-f28-af.htm

In reply to icnoble:

How do you find the focusing? For example when shooting things that move.

In reply to Gfunk: The focusing is good, although havnt used it on moving objecst yet

In reply to Gfunk: The 70-200vr f2.8 nikon is an absolute pleasure to use and is worth every penny.

In reply to Colin Barwell:

Damn, i knew someone would come along and say that.

In reply to Gfunk: have you thought about getting these two lenses instead of a zoom http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=78&sort=7&am... and http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=78&sort=7&am...
this is the route I went down as I couldnt afford the 70-210 2.8 afs vr

In reply to Gfunk:

I've got the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 D

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

Great results - beautifully sharp and contrasty images with nice bokeh. Weighs a ton though. About £550 off ebay from Hong Kong.

Focussing speed depends on the body - a tad slow on my old D70s, wicked fast on a D700. (As an example - with the D70s I would only get about 1 shot in 5 in focus if trying to track a dog running at full pelt towards me. With the D700, it's more like 4 out of 5.) I still tend to pre-focus manually for really fast one chance action or low-light though.

A few shots:

http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=206775&month=11&year=2008
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=200570&month=10&year=2008
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=195177&month=10&year=2008
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=185645&month=9&year=2008
http://www.blipfoto.com/view.php?id=143325&month=5&year=2008

Cheers
Bri.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Am i missing something? are those 2 links not the same lens? I think i'd like the flexability of the 80-200. I also find myself using the long end of my current 200mm a lot I might miss that 20mm.

In reply to Gfunk: I only paid £270 for mine on ebay, a bargain. Most of my lenses are older secondhand models and none have vr

In reply to Gfunk: sorryhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=65&sort=7&am...

In reply to Gfunk:

Am i missing something? are those 2 links not the same lens?

No, the first one is the older version (push-pull collar, rather than rotating zoom collar). According to Ken Rockwell the optics are the same, mechanicals different. The second one is still available to buy new, the first one would have to be secondhand.

Cheers,
Bri.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Oh right, don't think i've got use for an 85, don't really do portrait stuff.

I've got a 18-200vr but really want a faster lens to cover the longer end. And I find f5.6 at 200 not shallow enough for me. I've got the wide end covered elsewhere.

In reply to bh11:

I was refering to the two links for the 180 that Jethro posted. He's put on the right track now.

In reply to Gfunk: I've got the sigma 70-200/2.8 and find it very sharp. It is quite heavy but thats what you get with fast glass !

In reply to Gfunk: Hi

Ive used the 80-200 2.8 ED, The 80-200 AFS and now using the 70-200 AFG VR..

To be honest mate, they are all decent lenses, my favourite being the 80-200 AFS closely followed by the ED.The 70-200VR is OK, but I dont get on with it aswell, I felt the AFS focussed faster.As for optics, take your pick, all good.

Dont get bogged down with new model fancy stuff, Ive only got the 70-200 VR as I pranged my 80-200 whilst on a job and it got replaced with the VR, Id happily use any of these three..

In reply to SeanB:

Fancy selling your 80-200 ED?

In reply to Gfunk: ye ive got an 80-200 ED as well and its my favourite lens. Sharp and built very well, its been involved in many a high speed ski-crash and still absolutely fine....

In reply to Gfunk: I think I'm sold. I've got an 18-200 and a 20mm prime to get rid of. Should cover a mint 80-200. Will I be happy then? Hmmmm

In reply to Gfunk: I used the ED whilst my AFS was smashed up and the insurance co. were making their decision(about 2 months), I had to give it back, sorry mate.

In reply to Gfunk: Like yourself I want a lens in this range, dpreview site did a review of the Nikon 70-200, on full frame it vignettes and also appears to flare more than the 80-200. They reckoned Nikon needed to update the lens for FX format. Bythom had predicted an update on the 70-200 vr and Nano coat but it hasn't happened yet.

The AFS 80-200 that Sean had is said to have about 20% faster focus than the D version, does anyone have any comments on Nikon 80-200mm v 70-200 on full frame.

Some links

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page7.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/page5.asp

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00PCkE

http://www.nelsontan.com/reviews/afs/afs80200.html

In reply to Gfunk:

>that said it does work well with tele converters I gather.
The 70-200 is my favourite lens, but with newer cameras (e.g. D300) you do notice a pretty big drop in quality with the Nikon X2 teleconverter (I don't have the 1.4 or 1.7).

When we had 4MP DSLRs like the D2H, that extra reach was crucial as cropping was not often possible, but with more pixels the limitations do become that much more apparent.

>VR
This is useful, but good technique and a short shutter speed is still needed - it is certainly not a panacea so if your budget is tight the most recent 80-200 might be a better choice. There has also been some criticism of the 70-200 VR on full frame backs (vignetting) and from what I can remember the 80-200 may be better in that respect.

In reply to Gfunk:

70-200mm f/2.8 VR =

In reply to Richard Carter:

I don't get it. Have you drawn a set of testicals? Are you saying the 70-200 is balls or 'the dogs'

In reply to Gfunk:

its a heart :-P
I love it!

In reply to Gfunk: A belated vote for the Nikkor 70-200 VR. use one almost every day-fantastic thing, well worth the cash. Ignore the boll~cks about it being a DX only. Lovely bokeh in portraits @2.8 -built like a tank too

In reply to Gfunk:
I have to chip in for the 70-200 2.8 vr
I bought mine secondhand for 750 it was absolutely mint and had only been used a handful of times also included a nikon uv filter.
best lens I've ever used. bokeh gp fantastic. vr works stupendously well with panning. get it and don't look back