Nikkor 70-200 2.8VR

[JM Tran]

its a pretty well known fact its not a great performer on full frame as it is on crop cameras - much like the Tamron 28-75. But I still like the colours and centre sharpness it can produce.

[Seesee]

Just to add my bit.....I've heard a few times it being referred to as the "Rolls Royce" of lenses.

[TOM]

Only because it's weight and size are comparable to a "Roller"!

[arthurking83]

.. LOL! .. but it's overall performance is generally regarded as 'racing car like'

the corner softness issue is only a problem on FX, and at 200mm, and the extreme 5-10% of the corners.

In the vast majority of cases it's probably not going to be noticeable.

[TOM]

the plastic lens on my Holga is pretty darn sharp in the centre aswell.

[arthurking83]

yeah!.... but at 200mm? and f/2.8?? Can you take a standard, media acceptable/presentable sports shot with it? .. in low light!!

[TOM]

No way, for that I'd use the 2/200mm hmmmmm

[Sar NOP]

Now with the D3s, you won't need the f/2 anymore...

[TOM]

.why?

[steveo]

I love mine its a fantastic lens and such a joy to use.

[dsaini]

Nikon 70-200 VR is an excellent lens. Vignetting can be corrected easily so don't bother about it. The new 70-200mm VR2 has a small issue with specs of dust (foam??) inside the front element, so should check it out at purchase.

[arnica]

A mate of mine has been looking at this lens ... I don;t dare to look at it too much (otherwise I'll end up getting it).

However the reason for my post is to ask if my mate has a D80 and purchases it, obviously he won't get the full potential out of the lens (because it's designed for FX), but will it make obvious difference between the pic quality.

If I was to get it, I'd prolly upgrade to a FX body first and then go the glass after-wards.

What are people's thoughts?

[kaiser]

Quite a few people on here pair the 70-200VR with a DX body with great results - I think it shines on DX. Depending what you mate wants the lens for and what he shoots - a DX body is going to get you greater telephoto reach while still giving you excellent quality. So I reckon he'd still be able to get the "full potential" out of this lens with a DX body. I would always put my money into a better lens before a body upgrade but thats just me.

[N*A*M]

i made a lot of sacrifices to get the vr1 to use on the d300 and i've never regretted it for a day

the AF is quick and more accurate than the 80-200/2.8 two ring that i had earlier
colour and contrast is also better than the 80-200 throughout the aperture range
corner sharpness is fine on DX but vignetting and slight softness is noticable on FX

i used it extensively on a d700 and really liked the focal length and working distances
the corners didn't bother me for shooting people, but for landscapes you may disagree

the same lens effectively behaves like two different beasts on DX vs FX (in a good way)
i quite like the split personality

[TEITZY]

A mate of mine has been looking at this lens ... I don;t dare to look at it too much (otherwise I'll end up getting it).

However the reason for my post is to ask if my mate has a D80 and purchases it, obviously he won't get the full potential out of the lens (because it's designed for FX), but will it make obvious difference between the pic quality.

If I was to get it, I'd prolly upgrade to a FX body first and then go the glass after-wards.

What are people's thoughts?

Are you referring to the VR1 or newer VR2 version? The VR2 is optimized for use on FX bodies but it will be just as good on a DX body and may be even better in the corners due to the smaller DX sensor size. The new lens seems superior in every way from the old version apart from the 'focal breathing' or shortening issue at the long end but this may not be a huge issue in practice depending on what and how you shoot.


Another thing I forgot to mention is that the rubber on the zoom ring of my VR1 version has recently stretched and moves around a bit especially in hot weather. Not a huge issue but can be a bit annoying at times.


Cheers
Leigh

[Doggerus]

i have also ordered one. After doing plenty of net research i read this thread through and was convinced into purchasing one. Exciting times ahead with the new glass.

[lay-z]

A bump from the past!

I've been doing extensive research on fast 70-200mm lenses and have basicallly narrowed it down to the Nikon VRII and the Sigma OSM variants. From my research and understading after reading many testimonials, there are small design specifications between the lenses which produce BIG results in image quality - that fact is accepted. However, as with most people, it's come down to justification for value. I have no reservations with buying the more expensive Nikon but I'd like to know what I'm paying for. So the question is, what's giving the Nikon lens the "X" factor so to speak which makes it worlds apart from the Sigma and to bluntly put it, am I going to say "I'm glad I spent that extra $1,000 on the Nikon instead!"?

[kiwi]

A bump from the past!

I've been doing extensive research on fast 70-200mm lenses and have basicallly narrowed it down to the Nikon VRII and the Sigma OSM variants. From my research and understading after reading many testimonials, there are small design specifications between the lenses which produce BIG results in image quality - that fact is accepted. However, as with most people, it's come down to justification for value. I have no reservations with buying the more expensive Nikon but I'd like to know what I'm paying for. So the question is, what's giving the Nikon lens the "X" factor so to speak which makes it worlds apart from the Sigma and to bluntly put it, am I going to say "I'm glad I spent that extra $1,000 on the Nikon instead!"?

Sharpness at 2.8
VR
resale value

[CarlR]

Any experience with this lens and the Nikon TC20E-III?

[kiwi]

I'm pretty sure sar nop of here has this combo and rates it highly, drop him a message