I think I'm going to recomend him nikkor 80-200 F2,8 . I really dont know if he is willing to go so high with the price. Nikkor 80-200 is double price from Nikkor 70-300 or sigma and tamron 70-200.
It is expenssive lense, but I think is the best for the money and low light conditions between those four lenses, witch is importaint to him.
I think that now only question is where its gona be Tamron, Sigma 70-200 or nikkor 80-200 lense. For now sigma is on reach and about the highest price he is willing to pay. Well se if he is prepered to go a little bit higher for nikkor 80-200 .
the advantages of the nikkor arent just the aperture and the image quality. it is also, and perhaps even more importantly, the speed and accuracy of the AF.
One more question...
Because 80-200 nikkor is AF he has no build in motor for autofocus. Am i right ?
Is nikon D90 fast enough to auto focus ? I read about that Nikon D200 is far more faster than Nikon D80 or D70 etc so if you want speed than you have to get AF-S lenses.
I dont know how fast is D90 build in auto focus motor and if is worth buying that lense if at end you get maybe same speed with sigma auto focus .
Now see the prices in europe...
Nikon flash SB600 = 280 Eur
Nikkor 70-300mm F4,5-5,6 VR = 600 Eur
Tamron 70-200mm F2,8 = 780 Eur
Sigma 70-200mm F2,8 = 780 Eur
Nikkor 80-200mm F2,8 = 1.200 Eur
And yust for info .
Nikkor 70-200mm F2,8 VR = 2.220 Eur
It is quite a difference in a price...
I talked with my friend few moments ago and he said that he's prepared to give max 800 Eur for lense and he is interested at the moment for sigma or tamron 70-200 ...
Sigma is faster in autofocus, but tamron has better qualitty and sharpnes...
It is still quite hard to decide. For 1.200 eur he can get speed and quality , but it is a 400 Eur difference for old lense...
go for the faster AF imo.
you can always sharpen and improve IQ in PP but you cant improve an OOF photo cos the lens is too slow to get the shot. so my vote goes to the sigma.
One more question about the sigma. I read that some sigmas are not as acurate build than others so it is importaint that you test it first. But when you order it by mail it is not possible to test it first.. It can be quite frustrating if you dont have luck and get bad lense...
So what is importaint to test before buying it ?
OTOH, most users that take advantage of it have had good luck sending their lenses in for adjustment. It's just another step you sometimes have to take.
Personally, I don't worry about focus speed. I've missed a shot on occasion because of it, but not often. It's really only an issue if you shoot long then short or vice versa. As long as you are working in a general range of the lens, focus is very fast, even with AF lenses.
I read that sigma has offered almost every year new version of 70-200 F2,8 lense.
2005, February - 2006, december - 2007
Is it maybe wise to wait until spring of 2009 ? Maybe it will come out with OS verison of that lense ... It is hard to predict, but my friend is in no hurry, so ...
There has come to a little change.
I've noticed on internet one more detailed test for Sigma and Tamron 70-200 lense.
From that tests the tamron beats sigma in image quality all the way...
On that site I had a chance to compare tests from sigma 70-200 and nikkor 18-200 VR witch i know very well and the image quallity at 200mm is quite the same, and that is very bad... Sigma is better in 70 mm, but it gets very similar in 200mm with nikkor 18-200mm VR in picture quallity and sharpnes.
But the tamron shows quite different picture. It has good quality all the way and is comparable with canon 70-200 F4 witch is known as a very sharp and good lense.
Yes the tamron is quite slower than sigma, but beats it in image quallity all the way.
Sigma is good at 70mm and comes close to tamron, but if you compare them in 135mm or. 200mm there is really noticeable difference.
If somebody is interested I can send the link of that site where I goot those tests on PM.
I know that most of you recomended the sigma, but for the similar quallity as nikkor 18-200 gives at 200mm , I dont think so .
We'll wait for some more tests to come out, but in that moment I think tamron is better buy.
I read some more reviews and overall I think beter coice is to go for nikkor 70-300mm VR + flash SB600.
With sigma you really have to have a luck to get good lense and even then you get unacurate auto focusing. You can get much beter sharpnes by manual focusing.
With tamron you get more reliable same qualitty lenses, but it still has some problems because you get different sharpnes on left and right side of pictures.
So both lenses are not accurate and I think it is realy beter to get Nikkor 80-200mm if it has to be F2,8 lense and avoid third part lenses...
So this is yust one more experiance to me that it is better to get original lens no mather if you buy for nikon, canon or any other photo-cameras...
I think it is all clear now and thanks to everybody ...
I don't agree. You need to reasearch the lens you're considering against the alternatives every time. You can't assume the Nikon/Canon will always be better for all the criteria you care about.
Originally Posted by alessy
For example my Nikkor 18-200 (and yours) was less than perfect IQ but to many people good enough. The autofocus was very fast and accurate. So a great lens to many people but not you.
My Tamron 90mm has lovelly IQ but the lens lengthening when you focus is annoying. I can live with that annoyance since the lens was 1/3 rd the price of the equivalent Nikkor.
Horses for courses.