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

[N*A*M]

if you're shooting DX, a second hand VR for $1600 make make more sense than paying a $600 premium for the extra FX performance that you won't notice. i've never regretted my VR purchase and i use it a lot on both DX and FX. having said that, at the time of purchasing, the VRII was not out, and so the VR was really at the top of the list. if you're a buy once-buy right kind of guy, then it makes sense to get the best in breed from the get go, which is the VRII right now.

[knumbnutz]

The 70-200 is a great lens especially on FX.
I've had it for a year now and it is something that can be relied on.
Also reality is get the best lens you can afford, their value will last a lot longer than a body.
Downside is size and weight, it is large and heavy but beautifully solid and well built.

[occifer nick]

Yeah ive been reading that some people are really not happy with the zoom and wish they stuck with the VRI. Ive never had one so wont know about the difference. I think im up to about $750 now. Anyone selling theres for $750 or do i have to keep saving?

[Lance B]

Yeah ive been reading that some people are really not happy with the zoom and wish they stuck with the VRI. Ive never had one so wont know about the difference. I think im up to about $750 now. Anyone selling theres for $750 or do i have to keep saving?

Keep saving.

Focus breathing is really the only dopwnside of the VRII over the VRI, in every other dept, the VRII out shines the VRI. Focus breathing has not ever een an issue for me.

[N*A*M]

stop reading opinions and reviews. just save like no tomorrow. either one will be awesome. but if NAS is killing you, the VRI will satisfy it sooner.

[occifer nick]

Okay I've recounted and up to $800 and saving for the VRII still
I can't help reading reviews NAM I try to be as well informed as I can but overall this s clearly an exceptional lens.

[Sueann]

Gosh, after reading all of this I Want A 70-200 lens!!!!! Where's my money tree!??

[Goatch]

Save your money , I bought a VRII about 3 months ago and wonder now how I got by without it before , hard to take a bad photo technically with it , sharp as , fast auto focus on everything from
sprintcars on an oval track to horses at a Campdraught and then throw it's portrait qualities into the mix , no brainer if you ask me , kids get used to having one kidney or different parents eventually LOL

[occifer nick]

LOL@Goatch,

kids get used to having one kidney or different parents eventually

Great pics Goatch, Im still saving for the VRII. Every now and then I see a VRI going cheap and wonder if I should get that instead but in the back of my mind I just keep saying to myself that I will not be happy with the old model and will kick myself if I do.
New total $1000 saved so far.
I need my wife LuciIV (yes she does take after her name sake, just kidding babe xxx lol) to get a couple more jobs

[Goatch]

Mate wait for the VR II , you won't be disappointed , I have gone through all the stages of photonotsharpenenufftosatisfyme disease and it is the cure!!!!

[arthurking83]

.... Focus breathing has not ever been an issue for me.

It shouldn't be!.. not for anyone!

This focal length issue(or more accurately! NON issue) was a hilarious 'debate' recounted on various fora, and exacerbated by people who knwo nothing of technical writing. The info was plain as day on Nikon's blurb on the VRII and that max magnification was down on the original version.

That simple technical spec VRII has a reproduction ratio of 0.12x at a closer focused distance, and VRI version had a repro ratio of 0.16x at a further focused distance. Simple maths at work. Longer subject distance plus higher magnification is always going to give you a 'longer focal length' and vice versa.
The fact that the VRII lens had a shorter focused distance and lower magnification specs was the devils work apparently, and Nikon stuffed up.(since when was the lens ever marketed as a macro lens anyhow!? )
The fact was totally lost on these loudmouth morons that maintained their arguments about the focal length shortening of the lens, when even their precious macro lenses do the same thing!
The lens that doesn't succumb to focal length shortening is very rare nowadays, and it's almost certainly a very old design and one that extends a lot.. massively!.. when focused closer and closer.

As already said, reading too many reviews can do your head in, and the hard part is to filter out the chaff. (ie, the bunk info that is usually a total waste of time).

[occifer nick]

Yes in relation to this lens I have stopped reading reviews and now just saving to buy it

[N*A*M]

nice pan goatch

[Lance B]

It shouldn't be!.. not for anyone!

This focal length issue(or more accurately! NON issue) was a hilarious 'debate' recounted on various fora, and exacerbated by people who knwo nothing of technical writing. The info was plain as day on Nikon's blurb on the VRII and that max magnification was down on the original version.

That simple technical spec VRII has a reproduction ratio of 0.12x at a closer focused distance, and VRI version had a repro ratio of 0.16x at a further focused distance. Simple maths at work. Longer subject distance plus higher magnification is always going to give you a 'longer focal length' and vice versa.
The fact that the VRII lens had a shorter focused distance and lower magnification specs was the devils work apparently, and Nikon stuffed up.(since when was the lens ever marketed as a macro lens anyhow!? )
The fact was totally lost on these loudmouth morons that maintained their arguments about the focal length shortening of the lens, when even their precious macro lenses do the same thing!
The lens that doesn't succumb to focal length shortening is very rare nowadays, and it's almost certainly a very old design and one that extends a lot.. massively!.. when focused closer and closer.

As already said, reading too many reviews can do your head in, and the hard part is to filter out the chaff. (ie, the bunk info that is usually a total waste of time).

Very much agreed, Art. All a lot of hoo haa.

[Dizzle]

Wow great thread guys, and perfect timing!

I have just started looking into something in the range of 70/80-200mm, and this has been a great help.

Now to find me some of that pesky cash!

[kiwi]

FYI the sigma 70-200 just won European lens of the year

[occifer nick]

Yes but is it better than the Nikon? Would you buy the siggy over the Nikon?

[kiwi]

No, it's close to but not better but I bet mostly the resulting images would be indistinguishable in every day shooting

Would I still buy the Nikon ? If I had the money, if I didn't I'd have no hesitation

[occifer nick]

The point is moot now

[donnnnnny]

I have to agree with this, i was looking at buying the 70-200 and just could notr see the extra 1500 dollars value.
The 80-200 is an older lens but razor sharp .Yup no VR,Mine way $960 via HOng Kong i love it very good glass at a reasonable price

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.