• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

70-200 2.8 Nikon V. others for wedding photography

Benny Angene

New member
So I was thinking about the differences between the Nikon 70-200 2.8 without VR and the Sigma or Tamron. I've had the Nikon before and now I do not, but I want it again. Does anyone have any real world experience between these lenses? I especially want to use it for wedding photography since that is my bread and butter.

Any thoughts from fellow wedding photographers or the like?

thanks

Ben
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So I was thinking about the differences between the Nikon 70-200 2.8 without VR and the Sigma or Tamron. I've had the Nikon before and now I do not, but I want it again. Does anyone have any real world experience between these lenses? I especially want to use it for wedding photography since that is my bread and butter.

Any thoughts from fellow wedding photographers or the like?

thanks

Ben

Benny,

At least from my experience with Canon 70-200 lenses, they are so wonderfully matched to the brands cameras that it's a no brainier. These lenses are not hyper-expensive, so for anyone who earns a living as a wedding photographer, I cannot imagine not going with that camera's own brand. My own use of Nikon is limited, but if anything, I have been really impressed with the ability to grab focus.

I can't see why anyone at work would ever use anything other than the brands 70-200 as this lens is very important together with a second camera with a close zoom.

That doesn't mean that I don't collect exotics for special looks, but for work, I don't mess around.

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Ben,

So I was thinking about the differences between the Nikon 70-200 2.8 without VR and the Sigma or Tamron. I've had the Nikon before and now I do not, but I want it again. Does anyone have any real world experience between these lenses? I especially want to use it for wedding photography since that is my bread and butter.

Any thoughts from fellow wedding photographers or the like?

I don't speak from any experience, but I would be concerned with the absence of VR. Especially if your wedding work is (at least often) on an available light basis, as you begin to use the greater focal lengths camera shake could be a limitation.

Then again, the better modern bodies afford good performance at higher ISO sensitivity, which could overtake that concern.

We do have so many tools!

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top