Are 2.8 lens worth the extra money?

[ProfJohn]

I am thinking about upgrading from my current lens to 2.8 lens and I am wondering if they are worth the extra money.

Currently I can get the Nikon 70-300mm VR 4.5-5.6 for $511.

While the 80-200mm 2.8 runs about $1000 new.

Is the 2.8 really worth that much extra money?
I'll be using it for outdoor sports mainly. Right now I am using a Sigma 170-500, but it is really too long and would like to move to a tighter zoom. Currently don't have a decent lens between 70 and 170.

Also, is the extra money for a 18-70ish 2.8 worth the money as well?

If I move from the 18-70mm that came with my d70s to 2.8 in the same range what am I going to get from the money?
The high quality 24-70mm 2.8's are damn expensive and I want to be sure they are worth it before I fork over $800+ for one.

 

[virtuamike]

Are you looking at the AF-S version of the 80-200/2.8? It's an ok lens but I really like the 70-200/2.8 VR a lot more, cleaner crisper lens plus the VR works great (1/30 handheld at 200mm, no problem). Then again, if you're shooting sports then your shutter speed should be fast enough that VR isn't always necessary. You'll appreciate the extra stops when you're shooting at night compared to that 70-300. Try renting one first and see how you like it.

If you're still shooting with your D70s (or on another crop factor body), then you'll probably appreciate the range of the 17-55/2.8 over something like the 24-70/2.8 - it's harder to go wide than it is to get in tight. Used ones aren't too expensive, and that way you don't have to worry about the lens losing value if you decide to resell it later. It's big and bulky but it's super responsive, you get an extra stop, and pictures are very clean.

 

[foghorn67]

Go prime. 2.8 for cheaper, you just loose the slight versatility a zoom gets you.

 

[randay]

rent the lens and try it out? i would say a bigger aperture will get you better shutter speeds to capture sports. which in the end would mean less blur i guess.

the 2.8 will be much more versatile, unless you really really only will use your camera for outdoor sports.

 

[soydios]

If you need f/2.8, then it's worth it. If you don't then it's not.

You really only need f/2.8 for indoor sports to get enough light for faster shutter speed. Other than that, telephoto f/2.8 is damn near impossible to get good sharp focus on something. Plus it's bigger and heavier.

What are you going to be doing? Anything other than indoor sports, and I would say go with the AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR.

 

[xchangx]

What kind of sports will you be shooting? If it'll be at night or dusk then you will need the 2.8.

 

[twistedlogic]

I am thinking about upgrading from my current lens to 2.8 lens and I am wondering if they are worth the extra money.

An f2.8 80-200 lens will get you two stops more over the 70-300 on the long end, which is huge when you need the SS to stop motion blur in sports. Thats 4 times as much light.

So I'd say yes its worth it. Even when you don't need f2.8, stopping a 2.8 lens down to f4 should give you a sharper lens than the 70-300 shot wide open. Plus the subject isolation of a faster lens is always a plus.

Go prime.

:thumbsup:

Are you looking at the AF-S version of the 80-200/2.8? It's an ok lens but I really like the 70-200/2.8 VR a lot more, cleaner crisper lens plus the VR works great (1/30 handheld at 200mm, no problem).

I was under the impression that the AF-S 80-200 is actually as good as if not better in terms of optics than the 70-200 f2.8(especially FF). Plus AF-S is the same speed so the only thing your gaining is VR and a slightly slimmer 70-200 (for $700).


To the OP, there is also a Sigma 70-200 that offers HSM motor for instant focusing for a lot cheaper than Nikon's offerings, if you don't mind trying some Sigma roulette. Or there is also a non-AFS screw driven 80-200 Nikon thats ~%80 as fast as AF-S for pretty cheap.

 

[ProfJohn]

I may end up with the Sigma, have read good things about it and I think the focus speed of the HSM will be worth it over the Nikon 80-200

 

[twistedlogic]

Be careful of which version of the Sigma you look at as there are several different versions. From dpreview:

"Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX design history

70-200mm F2.8 EX APO - Original version, minimum focus distance 1.8m (1999)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG - Adds 'digitally optimized' lens coatings to reduce flare (2005)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro (HSM) - Minimum focus distance reduced to 1m (2006)
70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II - Improved optical performance (2007)"

So not all version have HSM.

 

[virtuamike]

I was under the impression that the AF-S 80-200 is actually as good as if not better in terms of optics than the 70-200 f2.8(especially FF). Plus AF-S is the same speed so the only thing your gaining is VR and a slightly slimmer 70-200 (for $700).

I've shot with both. Optics aren't the same, 70-200 is cleaner especially wide open.

 

[ProfJohn]

What kind of sports will you be shooting? If it'll be at night or dusk then you will need the 2.8.

Soccer and stuff out on the lake.

Not sure what time the HS soccer games take place so I might need the 2.8 for them.

Overall I am pretty certain about getting the 70-200 2.8 or perhaps 50-150 2.8.

It is the smaller one that I woner about. I really need to study some more and decide if the 18-50mm 2.8 is worth the money or not.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I used to shoot with f/4 teles and other mixed zooms with a couple primes, and now I use three f/2.8s encompassing 11-200mm.

I still miss the primes. The f/2.8 purchases were all worth it because they give me a lot of latitude to shoot in most light conditions. I don't regret their purchases one bit. A lot of the time you don't need f/2.8, but when you do they really pay off.

I miss my longer teles though, the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma and the 50-500mm Sigma. I don't miss the Sigma 10-20mm nor the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (didn't like focus and build quality). The only thing I miss about the 70-200mm f/4 is the light weight.

I really need to get a 50mm f/1.4 and extension tubes so I have macro ability again.

 

[virtuamike]

For less than the price of an extension tube, you should be able to find a 55/3.5 AI. It'll meter on your D300 and it gets down to 1:2 (1:1 with PK-13).

 

[twistedlogic]

I've shot with both. Optics aren't the same, 70-200 is cleaner especially wide open.

I said the 80-200mm optics where as good as, not the same. The 70-200 has to add more glass for the VR mechanics.

I'm guessing the difference you seen is do to sample variation, as I'm sure there are plenty of 80-200s that are better than some 70-200s and vice versa, as it also depends on the camera body. But I'm sure there is probably less sample variation in the 70-200s than there where in the 80-200s.

Don't get me wrong, if money was not an issue the 70-200mm would get my vote too, its MUCH lighter, slimmer, and has VR. But for someone on a budget, the 80-200 is built like a tank and can stand up to some abuse, plus you get a workout every time you use it, .

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

For less than the price of an extension tube, you should be able to find a 55/3.5 AI. It'll meter on your D300 and it gets down to 1:2 (1:1 with PK-13).

I've always liked the extension tube / 50mm prime combo though. I have a fast 50mm prime when I need it and an excellent macro lens with the addition of lightweight tubes. A 55mm f/3.5 would just be a so-so macro and a prime with so-so low light ability. To me the prime/tube combo is the best of both worlds. This is not really an area where I'm interested in saving too much money.

 

[virtuamike]

That's what a 50/1.4 with extension looks like. It performs way different from a lens designed for magnification like the 55/3.5. Trying to replace the range of a macro lens with extension tubes on regular lenses isn't practical, and you may not get the results you intended.