Any NON-professionals own the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR?

[occifer nick]

Hello fellow Nikon users

I was wondering if there were any non professionals amongst the forum users who own the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR? I have seen a lot of photographs out there from this lens and just love the quality. I know this is a very expensive lens especially for the non professional. I particularly wanted to know if you regret spending sooo much money on a lens as you just dont use it enough to justify the cost or if you use your camera even more now that you have one?

Also I wanted to know if you personally thought that your photographs improved in quality due to having excellent glass. Now I know some people are going to read this and say, "what a mong, just because you buy a good lens doesnt make you a better photographer." Im not saying that, i just wanted to know if you thought that the photographs that you were taking have improved due to better Bokeh or faster focus ability etc? Would love to hear from you, if there are any "You" out there.

Im just thinking about saving my loose change and getting a second hand VR model as people start buying the new VRII. (easily save $1600 a year in change)

[kiwi]

I'm semi-pro - that count ? I use my 70-200 all the time, even just chasing my kids through a park

It's truly a significant step up in iq and focus speed from any lens you probably already have, so, does it make a difference - YES

I never regret $$$, it's just the way it is though of course it's expensive, only you can determine the value as it's all about your personal wealth and priorities

[ksolomon]

I am only starting out and about to trial a second hand VI lens this weekend before I buy it, but I have had advice from Kiwi and others that it is a great lens and you will never regret it. I am cash poor but hey that's why they invented credit cards. Will keep all updated once the lens is trialed

[Lance B]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and I am not a professional.

My photographs have improved due to a number of factors.

1) it is an f2.8 lens over say the 70-300 which is an f4.5-5.6 lens and this allows me to use faster shutter speed to stop action and also for allowing a shallower DOF for subject isolation.

2) being a pro glass lens it has better IQ which gives sharper results. When making a lens in this price area, they do not compromise and therefore the IQ is as good as you'll get from a zoom.

3) again being a pro glass lens, it is built better and has more resistance to water, dust and bumps and knocks.

4) also being f2.8, it allows the use of TC's right up to and including the brilliant 2x TCIII which means I have effectively got a 70-200 f2.8 up to a 400 f5.6 all with VR and IQ suffers little at all.

5) the VR employed is better than the run of the mill VR as it allows up to 4 stops of handholdability whereas the standard VR is 3 stops at best.

With all of the above taken into account, my results from it are exceptional, IMO. If you like taking photos of animals etc, then this lens will not let you down!

D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII bare:

The detail of the flag when viewed in crop is amazing!

Unfortunately, I haven't any crops of these to show you the detail of how good this lens is.













This was handheld at 1/25sec!



This with the D700 + 70-200 f2.8 VRII + 2x TCIII showing the versatility of this lens.





Crop of above:

[lay-z]

Before I begin, I can only speak from a VR II perspective as I was initially going to buy a VRI but found a VR II at a bargain of a price!

I'm a weekend warrior at most but I do like getting the best possible image quality when I use my gear - hence why I bought this lens and ditching the 70-300. From personal experience, the image quality is simply outstanding and performs jsut as well, of not, better than some of the primes I have. AF is always spot on and pretty damn quick as well. Although I don't use it on a daily basis, there's no bit of regret forking out the dosh to get one because when it's on my camera, it's an absolute delight to use. Nothing beats see sharp crisp clear images with smooth bokeh at a 100% crop when going through the photos.

To help you decide, depends where in Sydney you are, you're more than welcome to try mine out to see what it feels like to handle and have a good idea of what you're getting with the VR I (imo, minimal difference for APC-S seonsors apart from a claimed extra stop of VR)

[phototyke]

I'm not a pro but this lens is my go to lens.........havent regretted buying it and know that it will be with me for a very long time!! IQ is excellent............fast focus.......colour/contrast......its got the lot........."just do it!"

[occifer nick]

Well it sounds like everyone loves it as much as I think I will love it when I save enough money to buy one lol
Lance thanks for the photos and information mate it confirms everything I thought about this lens in the first place.
Alan, Alan, Alan sorry couldn't resist haha mate what a very generous offer and one I'm seriously thinking about taking up. Can I ask what the good price was?
Kassy, would love to see some pics when you get it
$200 in coins saved up so far I'll keep you updated on the tally as I go. I might go straight for the VRII haha only $2100 to go if EBay is anything to go by! Lol
Thanks to everyone for your views and comments it's mch appreciated

[lay-z]

No problems, just let me know if and when you'd like to have a try and I'll try to make myself free The good price was $2600 from a classified advertisement. Basically the story was a mother bought it and found it to be too heavy to carry around whilst having to chase and mind the kids and never ended up using it. So I ended up with a pretty much brand new lens (still in box, plastic wrapping and all). I *almost* bought a used $1600 VR I earlier that week too.

[Bennymiata]

Even though I am a Canon user, good glass has its rewards.
Firstly, because it is so good, every picture will be a joy to you, anhd the lens will last a very long time - unlike your body which wil get replaced every few years or so.

If you do ever run short of cash, good lenses are easy to sell and to get a good price for, whereas cheap glass is usually hard to sell, unless you sell it for nothing.

So really, good glass is an investment and a joy to use.

[occifer nick]

Fantastic price mate, what classified ad site? Was it a web site?

[lay-z]

It was on Gumtree - I don't have reservations announcing it, just not sure if it's compliant to forum rules or not.

[occifer nick]

No worries thanks, I often keep any eye on there as well but find it a bit dearer normally. Nice bargain for you though

[lay-z]

Apologies Nick but I just realised I gave you the wrong price as I was thinking of another lens I bought at the same time.
I edited my post above - the price I paid for the 70-200 was $2600 (RRP was about $3200 at the time but I believe it's gone up since).
Apologies once again.

[occifer nick]

I thought that was an awesome price for that lens lol
So as a noob photographer you have just described spending $4500 on 2 lenses recently. Did you win the $30 million the other day on lotto? Haha

[kiwi]

Why don't you rent one for a weekend ?

[occifer nick]

Because that's another $100 bucks towards my own lol

[kiwi]

Fair enuff

[nightbringer]

I 'borrowed' a friend's 70-200mm VR several times. The last time I had to shoot at the Adelaide Convention Centre and it really brought its value home to me - being able to have that long reach with fast glass is an excellent thing, particularly if you're stuck at the back of a crowded conference theatre. That last time convinced me I needed one of my own so that I don't have to 1) worry about breaking my friend's $2500 lens and 2) go through the bother of getting it off him all the time

That said, I am saving up for both a new body and the 70-200 VRII as we speak.

[Paul G]

If funds are tight consider a 80 - 200 f2.8. Under $1000 pre-loved. I have one and it's a great lens albeit older and no VR like the 70 - 200.

[arthurking83]

When it comes to this type of lens 70(or 80)-200mm and f/2.8, my preference(and hence recommendation would be(in order of preference):

Nikon's VR, Sigma's (non VR)version, Tamron's version and lastly Nikon's 80-200mm

I have the Tammy, and mainly use it more for static type uses .. landscapes/abstracts, and other tripod mounted situations, but when handholding, it's the VR that I really want.
For a long time I used it mainly for this purpose, and may have used it handheld for 1% of the instances where I have used the lens.
The problem is of course that the VR does give you an advantage, and if this helps you with your style of photography, then it makes you a better photographer!
Not that long ago, I did a couple of shoots at a go kart track with the lens, and found that in doing this handheld I think I missed not having VR for those times when I think I needed it.

If a lens has the ability to make you a better photographer, then do everything you can to secure a copy of that lens as part of your gear list!

I'd say the Sigma lens is also a handy device, simply due to it's better focusing system.. or more accurately it's more user friendly focusing system compared to the Tammy. The full time override functionality of HSM(AF-S) type focusing can never be dismissed.
I think the Tammy has better overall IQ, but is let down by it's clunky focusing system, although easy to operate(compared to the Nikon 80-200/2.8), with the massively proportioned focusing collar, it's still not ideal.

The beauty of the Nikon lens(es) .. whether the new or old model, is that VR is a user selectable feature, so you turn it off when not needed, but more importantly you can turn it on when you do need it, and hence it makes you a better photographer for those times when VR helps.

I have no experience with the new VRII lens, nor the Sigma OS version, only had experience with the Tammy, Nikon VRI model and the non OS Sigma lenses, and while the Tamron is probably 90% as good as the best copy of the Nikon VRI lens, the non VR element has only recently become more of an issue for me.
Up till that time, I really never used the lens other than for still life purposes, and VR never really fitted into my needs as a feature.

I've dismissed the Nikon 80-200/2.8 as the least option, only for a few reasons:
1. the purchase price is higher than the Tammy and Sigma, both of which are equal too or better in IQ terms.
2. again both of the other lenses are better in terms of their focusing systems. Whilst the Tamron is not ideal, it's still better than Nikon's 80-200/2.8 focusing system(unless it's a second hand AF-S model).
3. 80-200/2.8 requires the use of a front filter.. dare I say it a UV/protective filter, to seal the lens against the elements. Without it, you would probably get a bit of dust and other foreign matter in the lens over time. Not bad, but not something you want to deal with in a few years time.

80-200 is a good lens, but nowadays there are better alternatives unless you really do have to have a Nikon logo on the lens.

If pure IQ is the highest priority, then I'd change the order of preference by switching the Tammy and Sigma lenses around.
I think a well focused and steady shot made with the Tammy is going to give the Nikon lens a run for it's money... but you need to be steady as tripod and good with your focusing ability.
Even tho this may sound like a major negative for the Tammy, it's not really if you know your own shooting style well enough to be positively decisive.
For many years, I'd never really used this type of lens handheld all that much, in fact I hardly ever used any lens handheld all that much.
If I was to single out any lens for handheld work more than any other it'd be the Tammy 28-75, and usually for portrait stuff.

When I got the Tammy, many years ago, I had good reason to do so. Years later, my uses changed, and hence my needs changed. Took me about 3 or 4 years to figure it out, but I finally realised what I really wanted the lens for.. in the end I got the wrong lens