Nikon Owners I have a question?

[YesDear]

Who here owns an 70-200 2.8 and what is your opinion of the lens?

Do you use it more handhold or tripod?

Thanks in advance for your opinions!

 

[saturndb]

that is a smokin lens.... my wife would kill me if i spent that much on a lens.
though it does get great reviews.. If I may ask why are you looking at that lens?

you can check out what people say about it on Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-200mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00009MDBQ

 

[dr_zero]

I dont have that one yet I have the 70-210 F/4 right now and dont usually need to use a tripod even in lower light.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70210f4.htm

 

[frugal_mar]

I have the 80-200 f2.8 - I couldn't afford the VR version. Based on the majority of shooting that I do with the lens (cross-country and outdoor track & field), I really didn't need the VR. For indoor track, I generally use a flash or my 50mm 1.8. As an aside, I took some photos with my 18-200 at my brothers pool this past weekend and I wish that I had brought the 80-200, I missed the quality of that glass.

I generally just use it without a tripod. I have take some portraits using a tripod with the lens. I do have a mono-pod, but I really haven't got into the habit of using it. I find that it is easier for me to just hand hold the camera. If you are going to use a tripod all the time, you wouldn't need the VR, so why spend the money for it?

I am extremely pleased with this version of the lens. The picture quality is top notch. It is just a wonderful lens. I assume that the 70-200 f2.8 would be a great lens too.

You should evaluate your needs and see if you can get by with the 80-200 and take the extra 500-600 bucks and get a wide angle, for example a Tokina 12-24mm, or your first or an additional flash.

good luck

-Michael

 

[handicap18]

Gdad has this lens and from all posts thus far he is VERY much on the loving it side.

This is probably one of Nikon's BEST lenses. The optics are phenomenal. Definitely pro level glass.

Some day I hope to own a copy. Unfortunately the price tag makes it later rather than sooner.

For now I'll stick with my 70-300mm VR and 70-210 f/4.

 

[Suburbanmom]

This lens is on my B&H Wishlist. I had over half the cost saved and then my 70-300mm Tamron died. No biggie, but I really used it a lot and decided to replace it right away with the Nikon 70-300mm VR. That set me back a bit in my savings, but I'll get it eventually.

 

[Gdad]

The 70-200/2.8vr is an amazing piece of glass. It never fails to impress me every time I have it on the camera. Here is a sample to give you an idea of the image quality- the lower one is a 100% crop- handheld- wide open at f2.8if that gives you an idea.

 

[Quicklabs]

Phenomenal picture, Gdad. It's not just the glass: gotta give credit to the photographer as well.

 

[Chikabowa]

One of the best lenses Nikon makes. I've never used it on a tripod; but the VR option is the best! Especially when hand-holding, in a church, natural light, zoomed all the way to 200 and you still get a crisp photo out of f2.8 with a 1/80 shutter speed!

The main purpose I have with this particular lens is when I'm shooting weddings. Every once in a while I have it on for something that is personal or during vacation, but it's a major commitment to have that thing on my camera (over 9 lbs when all put together) so I think long and hard before I pull it out.

When I shoot a wedding.... This lens is on at least one of my bodies 100% throughout the day (I shoot a wedding with 3 bodies).

It is expensive... but one of the best in the lens arsenal IMHO. If you can afford it.... do it.

 

[TiggersPal]

One of the best lenses Nikon makes. I've never used it on a tripod; but the VR option is the best! Especially when hand-holding, in a church, natural light, zoomed all the way to 200 and you still get a crisp photo out of f2.8 with a 1/80 shutter speed!

The main purpose I have with this particular lens is when I'm shooting weddings. Every once in a while I have it on for something that is personal or during vacation, but it's a major commitment to have that thing on my camera (over 9 lbs when all put together) so I think long and hard before I pull it out.

When I shoot a wedding.... This lens is on at least one of my bodies 100% throughout the day (I shoot a wedding with 3 bodies).

It is expensive... but one of the best in the lens arsenal IMHO. If you can afford it.... do it.

Beautiful photos on your webpage!

 

[Chikabowa]

Hey thanks!
You just made my evening!

 

[Steve's Girl]

I also have this lens. I hesitated on purchasing it for a long time since it is quite expensive and heavy. I was concerned about paying so much for a lens and then have it be so huge that I couldn't use it. However, I love this lens! The VR works extremely well and I don't have any problems handholding the lens. But, I do have to take the tripod foot off to be able to hold the lens properly.

I've only had this lens a few months, so don't have many photos uploaded to my smugmug site yet. (I'm way behind on processing photos!). But here is one from my daughter's dance recital in June

I took over 800 photos at the recital and was very pleased with them. This is at ISO 1600 f2.8 and I think the shutter was around 1/200.

 

[KrazyPete]

I bought this lens a year ago to help capture my daughter's cheerleading competitions. I find that now I bring it out a lot at weddings. It's great at pulling in a facial expression from across a large room in less than perfect light. I don't have a huge collection of lenses but this is my favorite.

I very rarely mount it to a tripod. I'm sure it would work just as well if you did just switch off the VR.

 

[YesDear]

Thanks for the input. I have only had a couple of days and have not even put it through all it's paces, but WOW what a lens. This is a time where you do get what you pay for!

 

[Ducky4Disney]

I have the 80-200 f/2.8 non-VR version of this lens, and I'm impressed with that piece of glass, so I can't imagine what the VR one is like!

DH would eventually like to trade in this lens to obtain the VR one. I'm looking at the 14-24 f/2.8... ooooh, shiny.

D4D

 

[Softrider]

I own one, and it is a great lens. Image quality is outstanding, and focus is very fast and accruate. For any kind of sports photography, this lens is an abolute necessity.

For about half the cost you can get the 80-200 f 2.8. You give up the VR and a little bit of focal speed, but it is still an outstanding lens.

My absolute favorite lens is an older Nikon 80-200 f 2.8 push/pull produced in the early/mid 1990's. IMO it has the best image quality of any lens that I own.

 

[El Nebuloso]

Another rave for this lens here. I got mine about a week ago and had a chance to put it through its paces last Saturday. Fast focusing, tack sharp, all around great performer. I will be pairing it up with a TC-17EII 1.7x teleconverter for wildlife (whenever that comes in). The VR is a real blessing when it comes to the long end.

There are rumors however, that this lens will be redesigned for full frame optimization. When (and if) this occurs is anyones guess. On a DX format however, the 70-200 is just great. As for its 'shortcomings' on a full frame camera, they appear to be greatly exaggerated and largely correctible in PP, although still something to consider if you see full frame in your future.

Oh well, gotta go, I'm getting up at 4 AM to go meet up with my brother for a full day of Nikon exercise

 

[Gdad]

There are rumors however, that this lens will be redesigned for full frame optimization. When (and if) this occurs is anyones guess. On a DX format however, the 70-200 is just great. As for its 'shortcomings' on a full frame camera, they appear to be greatly exaggerated and largely correctible in PP, although still something to consider if you see full frame in your future.

I was a little concerned about this but not so much any more. I just got my D700 today and gave it a little test. You can see a slight vignetting in the corners wide open f2.8 at 200mm- which should be the worst case scenario. Not too objectionable for most uses in my opinion- and easily corrected if it is bothersome.

 

[Chikabowa]

There are rumors however, that this lens will be redesigned for full frame optimization. When (and if) this occurs is anyones guess. On a DX format however, the 70-200 is just great. As for its 'shortcomings' on a full frame camera, they appear to be greatly exaggerated and largely correctible in PP, although still something to consider if you see full frame in your future.

Interesting... I've heard the rumors about a redesigned 70-200, but not in a DX format (the rumors I've heard are just that... everyone I've talked to who is supposed to be 'in the know' has said that it isn't true... we'll see though!). I also haven't experienced the full frame vignetting with this particular lens (I shoot with D3), but from the looks of the D700 pic that this is the case. Personally I like the look and have no issue with it... but interesting none the less!