70-200mm - Which one?

[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.