70-200mm - Which one?

**Brendo09** · 09-03-2016, 1:39pm

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** · 09-03-2016, 3:09pm

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** · 09-03-2016, 3:56pm

Originally Posted by Brendo09

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** · 09-03-2016, 4:44pm

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** · 09-03-2016, 4:55pm

Thanks for the useful post, Brendon -

I've been thinking about a 70 - 200 for sometime, so I'll be following what others say here

Cheers ...

**Cargo** · 09-03-2016, 5:08pm

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** · 09-03-2016, 5:28pm

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

The build quality is good too

Cheers.

- - - Updated - - -

Oooops!.... didn't read Cargos thread properly

still, we both love 70 - 200s

**Brendo09** · 09-03-2016, 5:59pm

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.

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

**Brendo09** · 10-03-2016, 1:14pm

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** · 10-03-2016, 1:36pm

Originally Posted by 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'?

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** · 10-03-2016, 1:37pm

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** · 10-03-2016, 1:45pm

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 10-03-2016, 1:53pm

Originally Posted by Cage

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.

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

**I @ M** · 10-03-2016, 1:55pm

Originally Posted by Brendo09

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

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.

**ameerat42** · 10-03-2016, 2:04pm

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

**Cage** · 10-03-2016, 2:13pm

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

Have a look at these reviews:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/s...s-review-19621

http://www.lenstip.com/239.1-Lens_re...roduction.html

Some real world users: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...hp/product/505
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Samyang-...C_lens604.html

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

**Brendo09** · 10-03-2016, 2:32pm

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** · 10-03-2016, 3:00pm

Originally Posted by 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...

No offence taken at all.

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

"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.

**feathers** · 10-03-2016, 6:08pm

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

**arthurking83** · 10-03-2016, 6:33pm

Originally Posted by 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'?

....

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!

) 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.

User Tag List

Thread: 70-200mm - Which one?

Thread Tools

Display

70-200mm - Which one?

Posting Permissions