70-200mm f/2.8 telephoto for D7000

[bastian]

So I'm on the hunt for a new 70-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens for my D7000, Im pretty much only looking at f/2.8 lenses and I want one that I hopefully can keep me happy for at least a year and then I might move up to FX.

From what I've been looking on so far, here is the short list:

Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM (new)
This is the lens Im leaning towards right now, the newest update from Sigma in the 70-200mm range with the same good AF as the old version but with an updated IQ which puts it on top of my list. Since its new it comes with warranty though there is not many reviews of it out there but the ones I've found is talking well about it for DX though not as well for FX.
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)
I've rented this one for the Melbourne F1 GP and its a really nice lens, the build quality is heavy and it feels like you can use it as a hammer then just put it back on the camera to continue snapping with it. The downside is that there is no VR/OS, the AF is not supposed to be the best though still good and the price is not far from the Sigma though it is a Nikkor lens and you know that it will be working with your camera for hopefully years and years.
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S (used)
Well renowned lens that I've heard been called one of Nikkors best lenses through out the years, great optics, great AF though it is still quite expensive and rare to find used ones for sale.


I've also looked at these but decided against them:

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APOMacro HSM II
Has got a really good AF but is apparently lacking in the IQ
Tamron 70-200mm 1:2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
Opposite of Sigma, good IQ and lacking in the AF department
Nikon AF-S f/2.8 70-200mm VR
Good lens for DX though still quite rare finding a used one and going for more than AU$1700 unless your lucky finding a cheaper used one.
Nikon AF-S f/2.8 70-200mm VR II
Really good lens but I've faced it that its beyond my price point and Its not really needed to pay this much for me to still be able to evolve as a photograph.


What Im mainly going to do with the lens is portraits, low light outdoor shots and I want to start shooting more indoor/outdoor sports.

[Fraucha]

Originally Posted by bastian

Nikon AF-S f/2.8 70-200mm VR II
Really good lens but I've faced it that its beyond my price point and Its not really needed to pay this much for me to still be able to evolve as a photograph.


What Im mainly going to do with the lens is portraits, low light outdoor shots and I want to start shooting more indoor/outdoor sports.

I would not rule out one of the Pro's top choices! Sure it is expensive, it will outlast your camera and as you evolve it will still be a top choice. It doesn't get rave reviews for nothing!

If I had to do it all over again, I would still get this glass again to do the very thing you have mentioned "What Im mainly going to do with the lens is portraits, low light outdoor shots and I want to start shooting more indoor/outdoor sports"

My advice: Save up and get it.

[Shokinen]

Based on what I read on this forum, the VRII version was designed to correct some vigneting issues with the FX the first version had. So if you plan on keeping a DX body, you may not have to gather as much. The first version is apparently a wiser choice.

But if you want to be "future proof", the more expansive solution will probably be your choice.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Shokinen

Based on what I read on this forum, the VRII version was designed to correct some vigneting issues with the FX the first version had. So if you plan on keeping a DX body, you may not have to gather as much. The first version is apparently a wiser choice.

THIS.

The first version of the 70-200 f2.8 VR was great on DX, and it'll be cheaper.

[Danylu]

Mate, you've missed out on a couple of bargains on the first 70-200mm VR recently (I'm assuming you're in Aus as well). Some of them have been going for near $1500.

[bastian]

Would it be worth buying a used 80-200mm AF-S for around $900-$1000 or should I wait for a good offer on the 70-200mm VR I for around $1500-1800?

Danylu, where was all these lenses sold from? Ebay, gumtree?

[Almond.Butterscotch]

I've heard the AF-D 80-200mm is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and is better than the AF-S.

[sk66]

Any of the Nikons will be a good choice. Personally I'd recommend the 70-200 VR over the 80-200 just for the VR.
I think the price for the VRII isn't really justified, and all three will perform similarly on FX (all show falloff in the corners).
The Sigma doesn't review as well as any of the nikons, especially the last DG version. I did note that the new version shows some vignetting even on DX...Probably excessive on FX.....

[bastian]

Do you think AU$800-900 (USD$820-920) is a good price for a 80-200mm AF-S?

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

I've heard the AF-D 80-200mm is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and is better than the AF-S.

Smaller, lighter and cheaper yes. "Better" is highly subjective. When AF performance isn't a primary concern, I'd go with the D, but when focus speed matters, AF-S. The AF-Ds generally have marginally better IQ.