Nikkor 70-200 2.8VR

[whipper_snappa]

Hey all

i'm getting the 2.8 VR, and im just wondering if anyone has had any troubles with theres?

anything will be appreciated :)
also mabybe the pro's and con's of it? *from owners perspective, not reviews*

Thanks (:

[kiwi]

its the best zoom ever made

[ABC]

I second what kiwi said - it's absolutely sh*t hot.

Only minor thing with it is that it is a bit heavy - but its worth lugging it around to get the photos that it gives you.

[whipper_snappa]

How heavy is it??

would it be wise to use a monopod (i do alot of motorsports)

[arthurking83]

Hi Aaron.
You seem young, and with that I suppose reasonably fit.

I reckon for prolonged use you may get tired, so a monopod can only help to assure a longer stretch of continuous use.

All 70-200/2.8's are approx 1.3 to 1.5kgs give or take.
I think there's a lighter weight Olympus(??) I remember reading about once, at less than 1kg, but the major players like Nikon/Canon/Sony/Tamron/Sigma... they all weight roughly the same. The minimal difference won't be noticeable.
I have limited experience with the Sigma, although I do remember holding it a few times(thanks to Andrew(I@M) and it felt front heavy compared to my (then)80-200/2.8. The one thing I did like about that lens is that it felt very nicely balanced on my D70s and then D300... even though it was really only about 100-200grams lighter, or something like that??

I was shooting one day recently some kite surfers, and I began by using my tripod(I don't have a monopd).. but once I started to shoot handheld, I think I lasted only about 5 to 10 mins, but my natural technique was to look for alternative angles and subjects anyhow.. so by naturally taking a (small 5-10 second)break anyhow to reassess the situation, or even if I really wanted to be there shooting at all. I stuck with it for about an hour..... just a fun thing to do, having stumbled upon these kite surfer guys. If you want to stick to your guns and do it professionally or just want to become immersed in the action, I think a tripod is a must anyhow. I didn't feel tired at all, and of course not having to get the shot(as in, no requirement to fulfill an obligation!) I could leave at any time anyhow.
I didn't actually find the weight of the lens annoyingly heavy, and had I not been actually looking for something else to do, I would have stuck it out till sunset or as long as they were there to have fun.
Using the tripod wasn't so restricting as I've been lead to believe(I use a ballhead with panning baseplate, but the tripod was only limiting because of it's height.
if you decide to get any kind of support(and monopods are quite cheap in comparison to a decent tripod!) make sure it allows the viewfinder to come to eye level at the least... and maybe a little higher is better for the purpose of greater flexibility.

You have an 18-70 kit lens.. stick something approximately 1kg over the lens or support some thing of approximately 1kg with your lens holding hand(I assume you use your left to 'cup' the lens to get an idea of how heavy it is.
Something like a small packet/bag of rice is ideal as it will simply blend to the shape of the lens. That's what I did before I got my fast zoom(the 80-200/2.8) and I vaguely remember it felt about 'on par'.
It stresses your lens holding hand, and you (should) naturally end up having your elbow placed against the side of your torso for extra balance and support, so you won't end up having to carry the extra weight using your arm muscles. That's where you'll get fatigued quickly if you try to carry the weight rather than brace your lens holding arm.

Alternatively get heavily interested weightlifting :D

[TOM]

if you have a dx sensor then it is a superb lens for a zoom, size and heft aside. not so stellar on an fx camera, but still good.

[kiwi]

Why Tom, mine is great on the D3, are you referring to the slight vignetting from time-to-time ?

[arthurking83]

Hey Darren, I think Tom is referring to it's soft corners(in FX) if you actually want sharp corner performance. It's very minimal and I think it really only affects the last 5% or so of the actual frame(from what I've seen) and DPR's graphical display confirms what every landscape photographer has seen in their image.
Extreme corner performance is not up to par at the long end.. even down to f/16 or so, where diffraction then has an effect anyhow!

For landscape work the 80-200AF-S @ 200mm is supposedly better, a lot better actually and we're only referring to the corners of the image @ 200mm.

The Tammy 70-200 is also better too, and one of the reason it came up in my list of things to consider.

Remember you and I have different requirements, where I really want great edge to edge IQ, you really only need the other 95% of the frame to be similarly great(for what you regularly do)

I'd like to see some samples (if you have any or have the time to capture some) of a scene that needs critical across the frame image sharpness, as in a lot of landscapes. Or architectural shots or something.. but no shallow DOF shots.

Been discussed on many Nikon forums over and again this issue of corner performance on FX. In 99.9% of shots of the main purpose of this lens, it makes no real difference.
It's really just not the most appropriate lens for the landscaper, and not many landscapers use 200mm ;)

ps. I've actually been try to avoid that focal length, as my main focus at the moment seems to be roughly 10-100mm or 500mm :p .... but I'm still on DX so I don't have to worry about it for a while yet! :D

I realise that the following point may be abstract and very limited to very few people, but consider this as a scenario.
200mm is not all that uncommon for someone to create a multi image panorama, as with those gigapixel examples. The 70-200Vr would make that task most certainly impossible if you were careful enough to align the lens exactly at the frame edges for each shot. The corners would be unacceptably unsharp and the image will show it.
You would have to allow overlap for each image,which is probably what most people do anyhow, but there's a difference between having that choice for yourself and having to allow for the lens's weakness.

[TEITZY]

i'm getting the 2.8 VR, and im just wondering if anyone has had any troubles with theres?



The only trouble with mine is I'm now forced to spend on forture on good glass to match the IQ of this lens :D

For motor sports a monopod is a good idea and you probably don't need a ballhead for that either. Also handles the Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 TC's pretty well if you need extra reach.

Cheers
Leigh

[whipper_snappa]

Hi all

thanks for your replies, i can't be bothered replying to each one so i'll just make ONE here hehe.

i'm used to carrying weights around so 1 and a half kilo is no biggy for me. (:
i'm bout 6"2' and the 2 monopods that i've tested i have to like bend down a bit cos nothing reaches my eye level >.>

i think i would invest in a monopod first, just for the motorsports and stuff, then save up some extra cash for a tripod.

also i was reading some reviews and i dont know if it will be on the 1.4x converter but on the 1.7 and 2.0 it had ghosting issues when fully zoomed in on the widest aperture?

although the ghosting looks wicked, has anyone had any problems with that?

Cheers,
Aaron :)

[TEITZY]

i'm bout 6"2' and the 2 monopods that i've tested i have to like bend down a bit cos nothing reaches my eye level >.>

I've got the Manfrotto 685B and it would be fine for you fully extended (remember the lense foot and body adds a good 6 inches to the height).


also i was reading some reviews and i dont know if it will be on the 1.4x converter but on the 1.7 and 2.0 it had ghosting issues when fully zoomed in on the widest aperture?

although the ghosting looks wicked, has anyone had any problems with that?

Cheers,
Aaron :)

I use the 1.7 abd haven't noticed any ghosting issues, though I don't use it wide open either. More than likely it would be an issue with the 2x. Only ever heard good reports about the 1.4 TC.

Cheers
Leigh

[whipper_snappa]

Ahh alright sweet thanks.

the review said it most commonly found on the d70 (unsure if it was d70 or d70s)

now im super excited to get the 70-200 :D

[TOM]

I still think the lens is a valuable bit of glass, I still have mine. I guess there was alot of hype with this lens on dx and it couldn't quite live up to its own standards on the fx. But it is a zoom and we must accept some compromises.

[blairus]

i definately have no problem with this lense i love using for my surfing shots
i donth think u can go wrong with this at all,but like early stated i too would use a monopod or tripod

[jock]

Hi all

thanks for your replies, i can't be bothered replying to each one so i'll just make ONE here hehe.

i'm used to carrying weights around so 1 and a half kilo is no biggy for me. (:
i'm bout 6"2' and the 2 monopods that i've tested i have to like bend down a bit cos nothing reaches my eye level >.>

i think i would invest in a monopod first, just for the motorsports and stuff, then save up some extra cash for a tripod.

also i was reading some reviews and i dont know if it will be on the 1.4x converter but on the 1.7 and 2.0 it had ghosting issues when fully zoomed in on the widest aperture?

although the ghosting looks wicked, has anyone had any problems with that?

Cheers,
Aaron :)

Funnily enough - Ive seen a tall guy like you use an adjustable tent pole for a monopod - you get em from a camping store like rays outdoor - bout $40 + home made mod to accept camera - they work fine :D

[Sar NOP]

I've been using this lens, mainly for portrait and wildlife, for 5 years now : this is a superb glass.

What I like :
1- Extremely fast AF, as fast as my 600 VR, and accurate focus,
2- Very good IQ at any f/stop and focal length,
3- Good IQ with TC-17EII, Kenko 2x and stacked converters (TCx1.7+TCx2),
4- Very good handling and well balanced with my D2 serie,
5- Very good craftmanship.

What I don't like much :
1- Average IQ with TC-14EII (this TCx1.4 works extremely well with my 200-400 VR and 600 VR),
2- Slow VR (for fast action shots, it's better to turn it off) and not very efficient,
3- Average performances with back-lit subjects (I always use it without any filtre),

[IngridM]

I'm using my 70-200 on my D300 for sports and action stuff (because of the 1.5x conversion factor for reach) and on my D700 for portraiture and closer work. The vignetting can be controlled in camera and I've never had an issue with it on either body. The corner softness has not been an issue for me because I don't stitch panoramas (yet). The size and weight (after coming from Oly) can be an issue but it's construction makes up for it. The VR can be a bit slow. Lens flare can be an issue but is easily avoided. The bokeh is fantastic. It's weather-sealed too, so if you're doing outdoor motor sports (depending on which body you are using as everything from D300 upwards is environmentally sealed) and that could be a big advantage.

I don't think you're going to have the reach you need with the 70-200 for motor sports without some sort of a converter. It's smaller and better designed than the 80-400 (which is known to pinch fingers if you're not careful when zooming).

The 70-200 has this wonderful ability of getting tack sharp shots while having a lovely 'soft' effect in some photos. It's hard to explain, probably why it's great for portraits on the FX bodies.

It is very expensive, but I think worth it. I've used a 2x Kenco TC on it and got lovely crisp shots even under very overcast conditions shooting dogs at agility. I always turn off the VR when doing action shots with it, no need to have it on if you're using high shutter speeds anyway, which would also eliminate the need for support if you don't have an issue with the weight.

It balances nicely on both the D300 and D700.

I'm very glad I bought mine and it's my main lens of choice.

[BLWNHR]

IMO it has some of the best bokeh in the industry too.

[mongo]

1.54 kgs to be accurate.

[N*A*M]

for some reason the bayonet mount isn't very tight on the d300, and other people on FM have noted it too

the 17-55 fits nice and tight, no slack at all
the 70-200 lens also fits quite snuggly on my d40x
but there's a bit of play with the 70-200 + d300 combo

also remember to switch camera and lens VR off when mounting/dismounting this lens
strange things have been known to happen

[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]

:D.. 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?? :confused: Can you take a standard, media acceptable/presentable sports shot with it? .. in low light!! :p

[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...:cool:

[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

[Bchip]

I got this lens a few weeks back, and I normally only ever shoot nature type stuff, but this lens has pushed me into trying out some portraiture work.

Can't wait to try it on some critters!