70-200 F2.8 Question

[Byron Lentz]

I've been waiting to get a Nikon 70-200 F2.8, but a $1,600 I've just about have enough money to get it. While at a local camera store looking at bags, the sales clerk brought out a Nikon and Tamron 70-200 lenses to check bag fit. I had a chance to try both out in the store. The Nikon was very sharp as was the Tamron, but the Tamron does not have VR, but is also almost a $1,000 cheaper, is it worth it? Just asking for input.
Thanks
Byron

[brmill26]

Depends what you shoot. If you're planning on shooting in low light, or without a tripod/monopod, and at 200mm a lot, then you'll probably appreciate the VR. The Tamron lens uses a standard micro motor instead of USM for focusing, so if you plan on shooting anything that moves above walking pace (sports, wildlife, etc), the Nikon is a better choice.

[Byron Lentz]

Good point, thanks.

[Byron Lentz]

Did some more checking around and found a review of the Sigma version, anyone out using that one?
Byron

[Kajuah]

the nikon is far superior to the sigma, definately, without a doubt.

as for IS, i choose not to use it - it's useless in my eyes, and mainly used if you're shooting extremely low light or don't need 1/800th of a second when it's midday.

Think about it, in low light you always use a tripod or a monopod, ideally, other type of support that's necessary for stabilizing the camera. Then you turn off IS when on a tripod. The only time you need IS is for those handheld dusk shots or dawn shots..and if you really have any sense to keeping quality you would know that you *need* a tripod for this anyway !

I find it more economical to buy the non-is version (70-200 2.8 L in my case) and invest in a 500 $ tripod once, rather than buying the IS feature and no tripod for every individual lens i buy.

[Loupey]

...The Nikon was very sharp as was the Tamron, but the Tamron does not have VR, but is also almost a $1,000 cheaper, is it worth it?

To me, the IS version (I shoot Canon) is worth every penny. In fact, I'm so addicted to IS lenses that if Canon made every model with an IS version, I would buy only those. For shooting low-light, hand-held scenes, IS/VR is the next best thing since sliced bread. One can shoot at ridiculously slow shutter speeds and still obtain surprisingly sharp images.

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

I agree with loupey - the VR is worth its weight in gold ..... the 70-200 was my first "upgrade" from the lenses I started with, I still love it when I grab for it.

[AgingEyes]

Then you turn off IS when on a tripod

This is where you think wrong.

Even if the lens is on a tripod, it doesn't guarantee zero vibration. If you do everything right every time, then may be you can live without IS/VR every time. Are you sure though? Is everybody able to do that though. You may be tempted to say they should but in reality some are not for one reason or another. May be it's not a big deal for a 70-200 f2.8 though since it is not that long Besides, the newer IS/VR works with tripod.

Another thing to think about is your ability to hold the lens stable. Again you may tempt to say everybody should but fact is not everybody is able to do that every time for some reason. And, some do find the 70-200 heavy and the ability to hold it really really steady should be a big consideration in choosing to go VR/IS or not.

Bottomline? IS/VR is a good thing to have.

So, imo, don't think. Get the one with VR/IS Besides, the Nikon one is better.

Finally, FYI and FWIW, I don't have a 70-200 f2.8.

[mjs1973]

I don't own any IS/VR lenses, but I do plan on having them in the future. I do think IS/VR on a tripod can be a very good thing, depending on your shooting style. When I'm in the field with a long lens on the tripod, the lens if not always locked down. If I'm shooting a moving subject, I have my ballhead loose, and basically using the tripod as a pivot point with both hands on the camera/lens. With this shooting style, IS/VR would still work great on the tripod.

IS/VR isn't NEEDED, but is can be a great asset to have when you do need it. Now does that asset justify the extra cost and weight? That can only be decided by the person who is buying/using the lens.

[jorgemonkey]

I started with the Sigma 70-200 and used it for a couple years. As I started getting more serious about my photography I realized that the AF on my Sigma wasn't very fast. As I asked around about the Nikon, I bit the bullet and got it, and my Sigma is now up for sale since its been sitting around for a little over a year.

I do use the VR (I used it Sunday) when I'm in low light/low shutter speed situations. There are a couple priceless images I've gotten with it that I never would have gotten if I didn't have VR. When it comes to my sports shooting though, I rarely ever use it.

Your pocketbook might hate you for a while, but you'll never regret getting that lens.

[Byron Lentz]

Wow, thanks for all the imput, looks like I will just need to save a little longer, I've almost got enough.I have seen the Nikon several places in the 1,600 range.

[Jimmy B]

The IS/VR is great for low light etc shooting. On a locked down tripod it does have some interesting issues. Look at the buildings and some of the lights in this shot, note the fireworks are ok but the buildings are wrong. I am really surprised when this shot was posted back in July nobody caught it. Keep saving for the Nikon lens.
Jimmy B

http://gallery.photographyreview.com...&ppuser=251231

[another view]

VR is a good tool to have, no doubt about it. I only have it on one lens, but it's a lens I use for a lot of hand-held stuff so it's a big help. However, I have the non-VR Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-D which is not much more money than the Sigma.

It's a really, really sharp lens and with the price difference you could buy a really nice tripod, ball head and quick release plates (like the Really Right Stuff or Kirk system). I really don't miss the VR in the case of using a tripod, so it works for me. Depends on what you shoot though.

[Loupey]

Two more things to think about:

1) The IS/VR isn't only for low light shooting - it can be used virtually all the time. I leave the IS switch to "ON" on all my IS lenses and never really think about it. In the last two years, I've shot over 100K images with just the IS lenses I have and I can only remember a handful of instances when I had to turn the IS off. But then again, I don't use a tripod hardly at all anymore (mostly because the IS is that good) so take that FWIW.

2) The 70-200mm VR version will be more versatile down the road than a non-VR version. If you think you will be needing a longer zoom in the future (who doesn't ), a teleconverter on a VR/IS lens will be virtually necessary. I used that fact to base my final decision to buy my Canon 70-200mm IS and a 2x TC instead of buying the 100-400mm IS lens.

So if you think of a $2,000 investment (for the VR lens and a good teleconverter) as a purchase of two lenses - a top notch 70-200mm and a solid performing 140-400mm lens - then the purchase doesn't seem so expensive.

[freygr]

Couple Notes:
1) IS and VR lenses need the IS or VR turned off when on a Tripod.

2) If you are plaining to purchase a IS or VR lens for tripod shooting purchase the NON-(is or VR) lens and get a better tripod and head!