Better value?

gws4

Hi there, I'll be switching from canon to nikon in the next few weeks, thanks to the amazing d750. I was wondering if I could read some discussion on what's the better value.

70-200 f/2.8 for 2400 dollars OR
70-200 f/4 and the 105 f/2.8 micro for 2400 dollars.


I'm also planning on getting the 16-35 f/4 VR and the 50mm f/1.8 G. I'm really excited to get to work with my Nikon kit. Thanks for your responses.

Golf007sd

@gws4: Welcome to NRF. Please do a search on our forum and you will find plenty of info.

Here is a topic on the Nikon 70-200 F4 we had.

Also go here for some good lens reviews.

The more information you give us about the type of photography you are into, the better we can advise you on which path to consider.

NSXTypeR

It's only good value if you use the lenses. If you're buying them just to own, then you're not really using any of them.

If it doesn't suit your style of photography, it doesn't matter what you own.

gws4

Well, I've always wanted a Macro lens. I've used the Tamron 35mm f/2.8 Macro for crop sensors a few times.

Feel free to learn more about my photography on my website, grey-satterfield.squarespace.com

henrik1963

The best advice I can give you is to buy one lens at the time. Use it and get to know it before buying more lenses.

As to F4 or F2.8 70-200. Even if you shoot at F4 the 2.8 lens still lets in twice the amount of light when you are trying to frame a shot. You can open it up to F2.8. But you pay a price going with the 2.8 version - it is more expensive and it is heavy.

I am very happy with my 2.8 VR2 version and would not swap it for a F4 version. Others would. You need to decide if you want/need 2.8.

manhattanboy

The best advice I can give you is to buy one lens at the time. Use it and get to know it before buying more lenses.

As to F4 or F2.8 70-200. Even if you shoot at F4 the 2.8 lens still lets in twice the amount of light when you are trying to frame a shot. You can open it up to F2.8. But you pay a price going with the 2.8 version - it is more expensive and it is heavy.

I am very happy with my 2.8 VR2 version and would not swap it for a F4 version. Others would. You need to decide if you want/need 2.8.

This ^^ is an excellent post.
The 2.8 version is heavy and big. Honestly I wish that Nikon would produce the 180 2.8 or a 200 2.8 VR as for me I am shooting 90% of the time at the long end when I bother to bring it along. For nights its great, but sadly most of the time I feel like I would like the f4 version better...correction, my neck and shoulders would like the f4 version better LOL

Golf007sd

gws4: I own both of the 2.8 you are thinking about and I would not part with either of them.

Having gone to your website and seeing the type of photography you do, I would recommend going with the 70-200 2.8.

With that said, I use the 70-200 & 105 2.8 for different reasons...after all one is a prime, while the other is a telephoto. Like yourself, the 70-200 is for my action and portrait shots. That is not to say I limit myself to those events. Their have been plenty of times that I have used it all day long. One the other hand, the 105 2.8 is a huge weight saving; great for portrait and macro photography. Both these lenses are fast and sharp. They will produce outstanding results on your D750.

The ability to shoot at 2.8 is something that you can never do with a F4 lens. That to me is worth the price and extra weight.

Once option you may want to consider, rent them both and see which does it best for you. Should you go this path, rent the 14-24 2.8 and test it agains the 16-35 f4 as well.

Msmoto

The 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is a very good performer. If you want macro, you can always pick up used lens, for a lot less than a new 105.

The 70-200
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/15909790558/sizes/o/

105
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/14941759428/sizes/o/

and
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/9234208131/sizes/o/

sevencrossing

70-200 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/4
If you do not need f 2.8 but are Ok with the size and weight of this lens, do at least consider the amazing 80-400mm AF-S FX VR G ED N NIKKOR, since I bought this lens I have not used my 70-200 f/2.8. Yes if is more expensive but IMHO better value

I'm also planning on getting the 16-35 f/4 VR

brilliant lens, love mine

I would also get the 24 -120 "Kit lens"
No, it will not be as sharp at the long end as the 70 -200, or at the wide end as the 16 -35
but it is a very good mid range zoom, for the occasions when you want travel light with only one lens

If you doing maro then the 105 f/2.8 is excellent, none of your other lenses are much use for macro work

tcole1983

It depends on what you consider of value. Or what you will use the most. If you think you are going to use the 70-200 range frequently then it might be worth the f2.8. If you really want the 105 then maybe that way. I personally love my 105 f2.8, but at least for me I don't have or miss the 70-200 range. The used and refurbished prices have come down on the 105...I have seen it fairly cheap...you could always get it later.

Msmoto

As to the 24-120mm f/4 VR Nikkor...see today's PAD or go here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/15639313263/sizes/o/

Looks pretty sharp to me...(78mm, f/9)

Vipmediastar_JZ

I held both before buying but went with the 70-200 2.8 and while I suffer from the weight it is a superb lens making the ache worth it.

105mm is also a great lens.

Photobug

Totally agree with all the comments on the 70-200 2.8. It's a great lens and mine is one generation back. Support the idea to go rent both the 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 F4. Good way to make a decision. The brightness in low light is a huge plus to me for the 2.8.

For the past 3 weeks I have used my 105mm 2.8 macro lens for over 500 images. Also used it for portrait lens. It's a terrific lens and best macro that I have owned.

kanuck

Very tough call, I think I would go for the 70-200 F4 and the macro lens over the 2.8 70-200mm. I feel your pain though as this would keep me up nights deciding as well. Welcome to the forum by the way, solid post!

heartyfisher

I have the 70-200 f4. we have a few threads on the forum discussing the 70-200 f4 and also comparing it to the f2.8. I would recommend checking them out. Both your options have good points.it really depends on you and how you use them and your subjects. Give us more info... but really you can't go much wrong with either.. I have a macro lens can't go without my macro lense..

spraynpray

Well, you don't say what your favourite genres are so it's hard to advise but as I see no macro requirement on your site, maybe you would be better spending your money elsewhere than on a macro lens but FWIW, I am very happy with my 70-200 f4. The sharpness and VR are soooperb.

kanuck

Yes its tough without knowing your demand requirements. The 105 VR makes a wonderful portrait lens and excellent landscape lens as well. The 70-200mm F4 is one of the sharpest Nikkors on the market now and an excellent value. The 70-200mm 2.8 is built like a tank and should only be bought if you really need the build quality, 2.8 speed and want to use tele-converters. It is an outstanding lens clearly though. Just my thoughts....