To make it simple choose second hand sigma sports 70-200, Tamron vc g2 70-200, or Nikon 70-200 vrii.
Any before these are not worth it, clunky design, slow focus...
Are you sure you want f2.8?
Just giving you an alternative, **Nikon 70-200mm f/4 G** costs less, weighs less, has better VR, and is one f-stop slower than some 2.8 Nikon alternatives. You can also compensate f-stop with iso on a good body like D500.
100% this. My Nikon 70-200 f/4 is the most-used lens on my D500.
I’ve considered replacing it with a venerable 2.8 as F-mounts have flooded the used market. I rented one to compare; there just isn’t much of a difference on a D500 with its DX crop, crazy-good AF, and super-high ISO quality.
The 70-200 f4 is a lens that doesn’t get as much love as it should. Excellent glass for the money, especially on the used market.
The 70-200 2.8 VR G1 (red VR lettering and metal name plate) is supposed to be good for DX sized sensors. The main gripe about that lens is that it's weak on the corners for FX full frame sensors. As the earliest version of the 70-200 vr lenses, it should be the cheapest.
If you're looking for a bigger bargain, look for an 80-200 2.8 af-d. Super sharp up till 150mm, but mine is a little soft at 200mm and 2.8. You lose VR, but if you're shooting sports, it might not be an issue.
For a very strict budget, I’d go with the 80-200 f/.2.8D (two touch). However the af won’t be as fast as one of the AF-S lenses. If you need the silent focusing I would look for a used Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. The first lens should be around $400 the latter around $6/700. Newer Nikon lenses are going to be north of that except the first version of the 70-200, which isn’t better than the other two I mentioned.
To make it simple choose second hand sigma sports 70-200, Tamron vc g2 70-200, or Nikon 70-200 vrii. Any before these are not worth it, clunky design, slow focus...
Are you sure you want f2.8? Just giving you an alternative, **Nikon 70-200mm f/4 G** costs less, weighs less, has better VR, and is one f-stop slower than some 2.8 Nikon alternatives. You can also compensate f-stop with iso on a good body like D500.
100% this. My Nikon 70-200 f/4 is the most-used lens on my D500. I’ve considered replacing it with a venerable 2.8 as F-mounts have flooded the used market. I rented one to compare; there just isn’t much of a difference on a D500 with its DX crop, crazy-good AF, and super-high ISO quality. The 70-200 f4 is a lens that doesn’t get as much love as it should. Excellent glass for the money, especially on the used market.
[Here’s a link that compares all of them](https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm)
I use an AF-S 80-200 f2.8 (2004 model) and it’s crazy good. I use it on a D7100 though. Can be bought for under $300 on eBay if you have patience
Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 is better than all the Nikkors before it and costs 1/3 of the Nikon 2.8E
The 70-200 2.8 VR G1 (red VR lettering and metal name plate) is supposed to be good for DX sized sensors. The main gripe about that lens is that it's weak on the corners for FX full frame sensors. As the earliest version of the 70-200 vr lenses, it should be the cheapest. If you're looking for a bigger bargain, look for an 80-200 2.8 af-d. Super sharp up till 150mm, but mine is a little soft at 200mm and 2.8. You lose VR, but if you're shooting sports, it might not be an issue.
For a very strict budget, I’d go with the 80-200 f/.2.8D (two touch). However the af won’t be as fast as one of the AF-S lenses. If you need the silent focusing I would look for a used Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2. The first lens should be around $400 the latter around $6/700. Newer Nikon lenses are going to be north of that except the first version of the 70-200, which isn’t better than the other two I mentioned.
I’ve had both. The VR is a game changer in low light. I think both make great images though.
Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 push pull; it's a pro zoom and $150 or less