I am a well-established photographer, and recently got rid of my Nikon 70-200mm lens. It is a very heavy, poorly balanced lens and is given to serious flare. Needless to say, I went back to an updated version of the 80-200mm f2.8, an extremely sharp lens. It doesn't have, nor do I like or otherwise trust vibration control. I read the specs on the updated, forthcoming version of the 70-200 lens, and although it is slightly shorter (very slight), it is still a big clunky lens to lug around. For the minor 10mm difference between the two lenses, I'll take the 80-200 lens hands down.

gbrim--You're far from the first to have come to those conclusions. In my case the very strong attraction to VR is vehicle shooting. A fair number of my photo opportunities during the year wind up being from either boats or trucks with the motor on (for various reasons). Even with the motor off of course there can be quite a bit of uncontrollable motion in a vehicle.

Frankly that is one of the biggest reasons why I use the Nikon 200-400 instead of the (non-VR) Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. And it is one of the reasons I sold my 80-200 and bought the 70-200 when it came out.

But I haven't seen anything yet that would cause me to upgrade to the new version. The escalating prices on many of the Nikon lenses are also setting a worrisome trend.

--David

It is the escalating prices on lenses, even those targeted at enthusiasts like me (e.g., 16-85 VR), that has prompted me to give up on Nikon for my lenses. After a great deal of research I have switched to Tamron (17-35 2.8-4; 28-75 2.8, the new 70-200 2.8). I have concluded that I do not need VR and that I cannot keep paying Nikon prices. I am not a pro so I do not put my equipment through a lot a rough use; I can't afford to. So Tamron now works for me.

- Chris

Chris--Let me know how you like the Tamron setup. Sigma is sending me their 24-70f/2.8 and their super-zoom to play with for similar reasons (hard to tell folks they need to spend $2K/lens once they go to FX unless they are very serious or have a very large budget so I'm looking at options for participants).

Sigma does have VR (called something else) on many of their lenses. Not sure yet about the 24-70, but then again Nikon doesn't have VR on their 24-70 in any case.--David

The equipment is due to arrive on September 1. I will send a report some time afterward. I think that Sigma calls its system OS ("Optical Stabilization") and I do not think that the 24-70 has it.

I did a great deal of research before deciding on Tamron. What ultimately sold me were consistently good reviews for all three of these lenses, especially the 28-75 and 70-200 (which Pop Photo determined was even sharper than the Nikon 70-200 VR at 200 mm). As for matters of cost, I purchased all three lenses for less than the cost of one Nikon 70-200 VR and for less than 50% the price of the new 70-200 VR. I acknowledge that these lenses will not be as sturdy in construction as the Nikon lenses and do not have VR, but I do not put my equipment through a lot of stress and I am not a pro. I also realized that the stops that I gained with the 24-120 VR were roughly equivalent to what I would get with a 2.8 lens, but I get faster shutter speeds with the 2.8 when I need it. I prefer the latter to the former.

Finally, although I shoot DX, I decided to stick with FX lenses with the knowledge that I will probably someday purchase an FX camera (I am also okay with my widest angle being about 25.5 mm on the 17-35) and did not want to be stuck with DX lenses. I know that they work on FX cameras, but it would seem to be rather futile to invest the money in an FX body to have it act like a DX one.

- Chris

Chris--I agree with your assessment that in general using DX lenses on FX is short-changing the camera, but Gavin's team (for example) makes good use of the 18-200 on his D3 cameras, so there is always an exception...

Sounds like you've thought this through. Good luck with your new lenses. For DX I sure do like the 18-200 Nikon, but it isn't even close to f2.8 so that is the big tradeoff with it (and of course it is now over $700).--David

I have been around the track so many times with this issue. What I really want is just to have an 80-400 VR with AFS. There is just no other combination for me. I just wish Nikon had come out with it in the beginning!

mesaboys--You may want to investigate the Sigma 120-400. Basically it is what Nikon (IMO) should have succeeded the 80-400 with. VR + AFS (although they have different names for them) at 1/2 the price and at least as sharp if not more so.--David

A preliminary report on the Tamron lenses.

Each of them focuses faster than I expected. Mind you, this is not AF-S fast. However, I judge the focus speed of the 28-75 to be as fast as my old 24-120 VR lens. The 70-200 can hunt on occasion, but this is not that big for me. Were I a pro, I might reconsider.

Wide Open
The 17-35 is a little soft at 17/2.8, but remarkably sharp at 35/4 (which is its maximum aperture at 35).

The 28-75 is a little soft at 28/2.8, but better at f4. I compare this to the Tokina 28-80 2.8 that I once had which was noticeably soft at 2.8 throughout the range. The Tamron at 28/2.8, although somewhat soft, is far sharper than the Tokina at 28/2.8. The Tamron is remarkably sharp at 75/2.8. It is also satisfyingly sharp at its close-focus setting (especially at 75mm).

One of the praises heaped upon the 70-200 is that it is sharp at 200/2.8. It is incredibly sharp at 200/2.8. Even with the Tamron SP 2X converter and two stops loss of light, pictures are sharp. It is also sharp at 70mm. One knock on this lens has been its sharpness at 135/28. Have not tested it yet, but will let you know soon.

If you are someone who puts his cameras through a lot of rough use, then these lenses would probably not be for you. The Nikons, although substantially more expensive, are probably a better choice. I am not one who puts his cameras through this kind of use, so the Tamron lenses are just what I have been looking for. Looking at the first images from my D2H yesterday, it was as if I was looking at images produced by another camera. There was that much difference from the Tokina 17 AF AT-X, Nikon 24-120 VR, and Nikon 80-400 VR that I used to use.

One used Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, one used Tamron 28-75/2.8 (both in like-new condition), and one new Tamron 70-200/2.8 = approx. $1,400.00.

One new Nikon 70-200 VR = $1,899 new and about $1,700 used.

Enthusiasts and advanced amateurs who do not need lenses that can withstand harsh elements when necessary, may wish to consider these lenses.

gonzuller--Thanks for all the detailed info. We look forward to hearing about your results as you start using the lenses day to day (and of course to seeing the images!)--David