SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Like all these GAS dilemmas, this is pretty silly...
I would like to get a nice, newer telephoto zoom lens to replace my very recently overhauled Nikon AF-ED 80-200 (the FIRST push-pull version). Here are the choices:
My first impulse is to snatch a Tamron AF 70-200 f2.8. They're fairly well reputed, and the price is about right... provided that I sell my Nikon well.
On the other hand, I could also replace my current zoom with another similar Nikon of more recent vintage (the two-ring type), which may or may not be more expensive than the Tamron.
Then, I could also get a hold of a Kenko TC. After all, I used to have a Tamron AF 200-400 f5.6, and sold it because traveling with it was pretty much impracticable. However, I bought it on a whim, when in reality I should have purchased a TC instead.
Finally... I can simply keep my lens. After all, I didn't enjoy it much this year because it was in the shop (long story) for months on end.
My use of telephotos is very ocassional, but not an annual event yet. In short, I like to have them, even if I don't use them much. We live in an area where I get to see some wildlife crossing my yard, but only once was I able to photograph a fox.
What would you do? Thanks!
I would like to get a nice, newer telephoto zoom lens to replace my very recently overhauled Nikon AF-ED 80-200 (the FIRST push-pull version). Here are the choices:
My first impulse is to snatch a Tamron AF 70-200 f2.8. They're fairly well reputed, and the price is about right... provided that I sell my Nikon well.
On the other hand, I could also replace my current zoom with another similar Nikon of more recent vintage (the two-ring type), which may or may not be more expensive than the Tamron.
Then, I could also get a hold of a Kenko TC. After all, I used to have a Tamron AF 200-400 f5.6, and sold it because traveling with it was pretty much impracticable. However, I bought it on a whim, when in reality I should have purchased a TC instead.
Finally... I can simply keep my lens. After all, I didn't enjoy it much this year because it was in the shop (long story) for months on end.
My use of telephotos is very ocassional, but not an annual event yet. In short, I like to have them, even if I don't use them much. We live in an area where I get to see some wildlife crossing my yard, but only once was I able to photograph a fox.
What would you do? Thanks!
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I'd go with the most recent two ring Nikkor 80-200 plus a Kenko 1.4x. As a matter of fact, I did!
Let me know if you'd like to try them out on your D700.
Let me know if you'd like to try them out on your D700.
Pablito
coco frío
For occasional non-critical use I'd go with whatever lens has 2.8 max. aperture. Not sure if your Nikon lens is 2.8 constant aperture, but if it is, I'd just keep it. If not, then sell it and get any other brand 2.8 lens. I have used a Tokina 80-200 AF 2.8 lens for years to do professional stuff and it's plenty sharp. Not making big prints, however, and I also use telephotos very occasionally only.
Attachments
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
i agree with the above. if your push-pull is the fixed 2.8, just keep it. if you really dont like it or dont trust it, sell it and get the 80-200 f2.8 D- that is the two-ring version. I have one and love it. i got mine with hood, caps, and case in ex+ condition for about 900 bucks. i found one small scuff on the case, and the rear cap fitted a bit loose (i replaced the cap, and the new one is perfect), but otherwise, i could find no sign that the lens had ever been used other than extremely faint marks on the bayonet from having been mounted. it might as well have been brand new.
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
One of my old friends offers this advice - 'If in doubt, don't'.
Unless you are in a great hurry, and it dosn't sound like it, keep what you have for a bit longer. Try to make a mental note of situations where you really need some other lens to capture that once in a lifetime shot. And then wonder if you would get more use and fun spending your money on something else - 'act in haste, regret at leisure!'
Can't think why I am being so downbeat - just flashed out £2.50 on a polarising filter just because it was there and it was an undoubted steal at that price - won't use it until next year I suspect. But it doesn't replace something I already have which is your situation.
Tell us what you decide to do.
jesse
Unless you are in a great hurry, and it dosn't sound like it, keep what you have for a bit longer. Try to make a mental note of situations where you really need some other lens to capture that once in a lifetime shot. And then wonder if you would get more use and fun spending your money on something else - 'act in haste, regret at leisure!'
Can't think why I am being so downbeat - just flashed out £2.50 on a polarising filter just because it was there and it was an undoubted steal at that price - won't use it until next year I suspect. But it doesn't replace something I already have which is your situation.
Tell us what you decide to do.
jesse
I am thinking instead of a teleconverter, just pick up a used DX body. 1.5 crop and no light loss.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Believe it or not, my GAS isn't at critical level yet. In fact, the TC doesn't appeal a lot to me because the camera I have, which is the Nikon D700, allows me to switch between a full-frame and a DX format. In short, if I switch from the FX mode to DX, I'm using the crop factor to my advantage... without any loss of light!
I guess the reasonable thing to do is keep the AF 80-200 I have (which is a constant aperture... fast lenses are addictive!). And, if i really want to extend it for some reason, I can do as Ken suggested and swing for a 1.4 TC.
Thanks a big bunch, folks!
I guess the reasonable thing to do is keep the AF 80-200 I have (which is a constant aperture... fast lenses are addictive!). And, if i really want to extend it for some reason, I can do as Ken suggested and swing for a 1.4 TC.
Thanks a big bunch, folks!
JayC
5 kids,3 dogs,only 1 wife
I am not sure of the older Nikon you have. I just sold my af-s for the 70-200 vr. I did research on the new Sigma and Tamron as well. Comparing the two 3rd party lenses, reviews state that the Tamron has great image quality if you can handle the much slower AF.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Francisco,
If you ever really need the additional speed I highly recommend springing for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR. I really have grown to live this lens, as exhibited by the fact I spent about $500 to have the autofocus and electronic assemblies replaced when they died.
An added bonus is that I get to freak people out as they think I have a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have the Grey colored version
Enjoy whatever you end up getting!
Kent
PS- If you want to get a little exotic and don't mind MF you can get a stunning Leica 180mm and pop on a Leitax conversion mount
If you ever really need the additional speed I highly recommend springing for the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR. I really have grown to live this lens, as exhibited by the fact I spent about $500 to have the autofocus and electronic assemblies replaced when they died.
An added bonus is that I get to freak people out as they think I have a Canon lens on a Nikon body. I have the Grey colored version
Enjoy whatever you end up getting!
Kent
PS- If you want to get a little exotic and don't mind MF you can get a stunning Leica 180mm and pop on a Leitax conversion mount
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Here is another option to consider. Try out a 70-300 VR Nikkor. It is sharp and focuses fast on my D700. It will not break the bank to buy it and is much lighter to carry around than the 2.8 zoom you have. No matter what you do you never have enough FL for wildlife in all circumstances. The one downside to using the D700's crop to DX format option is that you still do not have the pixel density of a D300. I think you might just as well crop an image in post from an FX file. Just a thought.
Bob
Bob
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
"What would you do?"
I'd sit back and spend my money on coffee. Anyone with me would get beer.
I'd sit back and spend my money on coffee. Anyone with me would get beer.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
My Nikon zoom is the 1982-84 version: the first.
I also have an AF 70-210 f4-5.6 non-D, purchased here for a very nice price. But that's another story.
In the end, for the immediate future, I'll keep the 80-200, but I'll keep an eye open for upgrades (like another, newer 80-200 or a 70-200 f2.8).
Now... time to utilize the lens!
I also have an AF 70-210 f4-5.6 non-D, purchased here for a very nice price. But that's another story.
In the end, for the immediate future, I'll keep the 80-200, but I'll keep an eye open for upgrades (like another, newer 80-200 or a 70-200 f2.8).
Now... time to utilize the lens!
Last edited:
italy74
Well-known
Ciao Francisco
among the options you mentioned, I'd go for the Tamron (which probably isn't lightning fast for focusing but has impressive optics and it's the lighter of the F/2.8 group, besides it's also the cheapest one) - give a look to the review:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_70-200mm_f28_di_ld_if_macro
If you had a pure DX camera, I'd have also suggested to check the newer Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 although shorter at the tele end because it's extremely compact (looks a half liter coke can) and looks to be a real good lens (better than the 1st model) - plus has HSM which is always welcome.
among the options you mentioned, I'd go for the Tamron (which probably isn't lightning fast for focusing but has impressive optics and it's the lighter of the F/2.8 group, besides it's also the cheapest one) - give a look to the review:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_70-200mm_f28_di_ld_if_macro
If you had a pure DX camera, I'd have also suggested to check the newer Sigma 50-150 F/2.8 although shorter at the tele end because it's extremely compact (looks a half liter coke can) and looks to be a real good lens (better than the 1st model) - plus has HSM which is always welcome.
kxl
Social Documentary
For occasional use, just keep what you have.
But if you MUST feed the GAS, then I would say you have 3 options:
1) 70-200mm/2.8
2) Above lens plus TC
3) 80-400mm - not as fast, but more reach. AF is slower, but as long as you're not shooting fast-flying birds and don't need f2.8, this one would be a good choice. Here are a couple of examples:
But if you MUST feed the GAS, then I would say you have 3 options:
1) 70-200mm/2.8
2) Above lens plus TC
3) 80-400mm - not as fast, but more reach. AF is slower, but as long as you're not shooting fast-flying birds and don't need f2.8, this one would be a good choice. Here are a couple of examples:
shakey_slim
Newbie
Keep it. According to MIR, the dual ring MKIII version has the same internals as the first version: 16 elements in 11 groups.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...esources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index3.htm
I have the same lens on my D2H. Spent a day photographing bees with it, and I'm pretty happy with the results.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...esources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index3.htm
I have the same lens on my D2H. Spent a day photographing bees with it, and I'm pretty happy with the results.
Attachments
Last edited: