Is this lens sharper and have as good color reproduction as the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II with aTC-20?
1491655
Yes, it is sharper and has beautiful color. I rarely use my 70-200 since I bought the 80-400 AFS.Rent one and see for yourself.
1491656
Absolutely. The 70-200 with a TC-2 isn't any better than the 70-300. I've owned both. The 80-400 is better than the 70-300 therefore better than the 70-200 with a tc. In good light its better than the 70-200 with a 1.4.
1491657
I have been very pleased...even seems to do well at dusk. It is my go to lens as well...still light enough to carry without a tripod, but not so darn heavy as the 500 lenses.
801145
I would also like to hear about this from someone who knows. I was planning on getting the kit lens and buying the 70-300mm VR Nikkor lens with it thinking that the VR technology makes them superior, but most people are very unimpressed with the kit lens. One reviewer was raving about Sigma lenses for the D90, such as Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. I am now seriously rethinking my lens purchase plan.
1609778
Good timing on your question, because DPReview.com JUST posted their review last week on that lens:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/Optically it appears to be quite good. AF is slow and noisy, but for 694 bucks at Amazon you can't beat the price if budget is a concern.
2180990
I just sold my older tamron 70-200 and got this newer version. If you do sport, I say yes it is worth it. The faster focusing motor helps for tracking and the VC here is unbelievable. If you shoot portrait, other still photography in good light then the IQ isn't much difference. This is my action sport lens, the newer version taht I couldn't afford with the nikon VR2 model. I could of gotten a used older vr1 version.
154674
I use this lens with my A7R. The lower left edge does have some edge sharpness issues but only if you are zoomed almost all the way in or all the way out. Also zoomed in or out to near it's extents you get considerable distortion. All this said though this is a great lens that I use most of the time. When I do use it at the extents i just correct the image in LR. What's interesting if they had made it a 28-65mm zoom few if any of the pixel peepers would be complaining. The color rendition is very nice on this lens and the focusing speed is relatively fast. I think 99% of A7R users will be very happy with the SEL2470Z. I use this lens with my A7R. The lower left edge does have some edge sharpness issues but only if you are zoomed almost all the way in or all the way out. Also zoomed in or out to near it's extents you get considerable distortion. All this said though this is a great lens that I use most of the time. When I do use it at the extents i just correct the image in LR. What's interesting if they had made it a 28-65mm zoom few if any of the pixel peepers would be complaining. The color rendition is very nice on this lens and the focusing speed is relatively fast. I think 99% of A7R users will be... » Read More I use this lens with my A7R. The lower left edge does have some edge sharpness issues but only if you are zoomed almost all the way in or all the way out. Also zoomed in or out to near it's extents you get considerable distortion. All this said though this is a great lens that I use most of the time. When I do use it at the extents i just correct the image in LR. What's interesting if they had made it a 28-65mm zoom few if any of the pixel peepers would be complaining. The color rendition is very nice on this lens and the focusing speed is relatively fast. I think 99% of A7R users will be very happy with the SEL2470Z. « Show Less
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
196653
I have owned the Nikkor 18-70, Nikkor 17-55, as well as Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 12-24. Out of these 5, the 14-24 is the sharpest at f2.8 and also the lowest in distortion. The barrel distortion @ 14mm is easy to fix in post-processing. but more importantly--it has very little distortion/drop-off of sharpness at the edges, which is tougher to fix. Simply said--it would be very hard to improve on this lens!
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
137014
There is one available from OneCall for $1,899.00, but I don't think I can trust it, and extra $200 isn't really worth the risk of getting a lens that may not have Nikon's warranty on it. Sigh... should I just go get the 105mm macro VR or the 70-200mm VR II?
963339
This is like comparing apples to oranges. The 70-300mm VR is strictly a "consumer-prosumer" grade lens. Think of it as the "cheap version" of the famous Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II lens. The 28-300mm VR lens is more for the serious amateur or professional on the go that shoots full frame 35mm or DX. I use 2 Nikon D800's and the 28-300mm lens is on one of them at all times. The newer version that is out now is better than the first issue of a couple years ago, and even at 36 megapixels, I'm getting clean, clear, crisp shots...something I rarely got with my 70-300mm lens. To be perfectly honest, with a GOOD quality multi-coated UV filter on it, you can use this lens all day without changing lenses once. It has become my "walking around" lens of choice. In fact, I just got back from Hawaii and used it for 9 days straight without using any of the other 7 lenses I had in my bag. I recommend it, even for your D7000...you'll just end up shooting an effective range of 105mm to 450mm, or a LOOOONNNNGGGG telephoto lens when you need it.
465671
VR is handy in low light when your subject is relatively static because it allows you to shoot with a lower ISO, which theoretically delivers better color, less noise, etc. VR won't help freeze action, however, so your wiggly kids will still look blurry. I have VR on my 16-85mm DX Nikkor, which I only occasionally use indoors without a flash. Also, a basic relationship still exists between focal range and image quality. At a given price point, the lens with the greater range will deliver the poorer results; it's simply more expensive for a manufacturer to engineer the more complex optics and mechanics for a big-range lens, which leaves less money available to finely tune a more simple system. My 16-85mm zoom has notably better image quality than Nikon's 18-200mm, and they're nearly the same price at $600. Along the same line, 3rd-party vendors typically trade-off build quality for image quality. So you can find Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses with pretty nice image quality at prices considerably cheaper than a Nikon or Canon lens, but they aren't built as well. And in the end, yes, a pro Sigma will look cleaner than an amateur Nikon, but the comparable pro Nikon will almost always perform better in every category than the pro Sigma. You get what you pay for.
2078344
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise. Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
845655
My Nikon 18-140 is now my goto lense. It is very sharp, especially at f9-f11.
2180989
I had an older Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 without VC. I did not own the older Tamron. I love this new Tamron lens and very glad that I spent the money on it. Noticeably sharper and the VC works great. I do shoot low light at concerts and focus has performed well. Also portraits with wide aperture.
2004639
I've tried both and I like the 24-70 far better. It is a sharper, faster lens.
1945788
Yes, it is. It will get you close to the action and will still allow you to be able to move around for better views and better angles. As others have already pointed out, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens will perform better in low light but with a hefty price tag and also a loss of mobility due to the increased size and weight.
1333595
I have personally been very, very excited about the sharpness and color fidelity with this lens. Couldn't be happier. If you're shooting northern lights, I should mention that the angle of view is rather tight (effective 96mm on a 1.6x crop factor sensor), but I have been absolutely thrilled with the sharpness and color of this lens. The autofocus could be faster. But as a macro lens, it has to be razor sharp, and it has been for me. Before this lens, I tried the 50mm 1.8, and was not happy with the color, or even the sharpness. This lens is a much better performer in my opinion.