70 - 200mm 2.8

[Danosborne6661]

Need a bit of advice photo peoples!
Looking at getting a 70-200mm 2.8 Lens but they really vary in price!

It's for a Nikon D90 body so I don't need things like the build in AF motor. For the price I'm looking at it won't have VR either. Basically they can really vary in prices. I'm looking at getting a Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 but are these still good lenses? Let me know what the benefits are of spending £1000+ on one of these lenses over the £500 ones that I'm looking at off fleabay.

Thanks in advance

[NikonD700]

What are the main reasons for going the 70-200 f/2.8 route. Is it the large aperture?

[neiloliver]

I have a Cannon 70-200 F4 L lens and it is great. The price jump to a 2.8 is considerable and I could not justify it. Unless it is a really dull day or you are indoors I dont think you need the F2.8. Also, if you are shooting at 2.8 your depth of field is very small and getting stuff in focus will be more difficult.

N

[NikonD700]

One option might be the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR. I had one and was a very good lens. Ok, aperture wise it wasn't the fastest but in good light it performed really well. I now have the 70-200 f2.8 VR and it's an awesome lens, great optics, fast focusing and the bokeh is creamy smooth. But it's also very heavy. Definitey not for carrying around all day.

[Danosborne6661]

I'll be using it in indoor conditions really and I like the depth of field so yea I think the 2.8 would be a good call over the other

[NikonD700]

Have you also looked at the Nikon 80-200 f2.8. Can be bought for good prices both new and second hand.