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.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/127044031/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126937880/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126963118.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126963132.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/131621365/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/131621367/original.jpg

This was handheld at 1/25sec!

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/127285727.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126211144/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/132886383/original.jpg

Crop of above:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/132886384/original.jpg

[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 (http://www.livevideo.com/video/jessicapeanut/D9B9BC02A78C4EA1BA993306D085C70A/alan-alan-alan-steve-.aspx) 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
:th3:

[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 :th3:

[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 :p

[occifer nick]

Thank you for the extensive explanation arthurking it was very useful. The more I research the more I know that saving for this lens is a no brainer for me. I deserve it I've been a good hubby who does all his chores ;) lol

Paul, I thought about the 80-200 as price was good but when I thought about how much I would be spending I decided that I may as well save for the 70 as everyone is blown away by this lens.

I'm with ya nightbringer VRII here we come haha

I read a review by someone that shot with primes and he bought or borrowed (can't remember now) a VR1, he stated that his primes were better when comparing to the same focal length of his primes and was vy disappointed. He went on to say that he used the VRII and was blown away as it out performed his primes so he bought one :) Anyone else notice this with the VRII as a set focal length compared to their prime?

[I @ M]

Nick, whoever said that the primes out performed the zoom by a large degree must have had a very impressive range of top qualty prime lenses or they were using a sample of the zoom that wasn't quite "in tune" with their body.
A lot of the work that went into the VR11 over the VR1 seemed to be concentrated around getting better edge resolution on FX bodies and either model of that lens seems to be one where you rarely hear negative reports about image quality.

A word of warning, when you go ahead and buy the VR11 version that you know that you want need, don't, repeat don't try it on an FX body because you will suddenly see that those focal lengths are an absolutely ideal range on the FXcamera and you will have to start saving your coins all over again to buy a D700 D3s D3x D800 D4 D4x. :rolleyes:

[reflect]

Just buy one, sell the kids, the house, whatever, it is truly a great lens. Yes I am a part time pro, part time retired, but I would own one just to shoot the kids, the letterbox, whatever with. Well made, quality components and just plain nice.

I just saw I@Ms comment about FX bodies and fell on the floor laughing.....sloop true, a few years back I went out to buy a speed light and came back lots of thousands of dollars poorer...long suffering wife wasn't all that happy

[Lance B]

I know of a very reputable on-line store in Sydney that has the 70-200 f2.8 VRII for AU$2,600. You can either pick up or get it delivered. If you want to know which one, PM me.

[occifer nick]

Mate when i save enough coins im hoping they will still be around that price lol
hmmmmmmmmmm D800? better start 2 coin jars!!! haha

[Xebadir]

Heh. It happens like that I@M. Once I saw what a 14-24 could do I was hooked...the upgrade to the D700 took some time to save for but I couldn't have one without the other. Its like heaven ;). I have a similar feeling that if I try a 70-200 VR or II I will want one...so hence the best option the moment is *do or do not, there is no try*:p

[rellik666]

Another one with :th3::th3::th3: for the VR II. Fantastic lens, really quick and lovely to use....looking forward to a weekend of motorsport with it.... :D

I am glad I bought it when I did as it was under $2000....but lovely and well worth every penny! :p

[nightbringer]

Yeah I've got a feeling that I'll be getting the new FX that Nikon will be putting out, or if not then at least a second-hand D700 with grip, and for sure I'll be getting a new lens to go with that new body too ... this hobby keeps pummelling my bank account lol

[gqtuazon]

I have this superb lens too and I'm just an enthusiast. Aside from the excellent optical quality and built that the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 VRII offers, they are also "NAS" proof. Once you have these zoom lenses, your NAS craving is minimized quite a bit. :eek::D Your bank account balance may be a lot lower but you'll recover in the long run. You'll avoid buying and selling gear when you get the best lens that you are willing to pay. I could have had the best lenses in the first place and saved the trouble in getting "ok" lenses. Of course, that is just my suggestion or opinion since I regretted not getting it when I was just starting this expensive hobby.

[johndom]

i have the 70-200vr1 and my comrades are always borrowing it to shoot with as its much quicker focus than their older 70-200s. Its heavy to shoot with all day, but crisp as a sao even at 1/50th.

[occifer nick]

Under two grand sounds like a deal and a half there Roo! Nice score :th3:
Added $500 from part of my tax return so a little closer,
approx $700 so far
Haha

[driverkelly]

You will never regret quality. I have it and the 24-70 f2.8 and they are a perfect pair, quality is outstanding. That is why the pro's go for them and they will last longer than your camera body's, these you will need to upgrade over time but not your quality lenses.
Regards Allen

[occifer nick]

Thanks Allen, got any pics taken with yours? would love to see some ;)
and Roo where did you manage to find one for under two grand? Any other place to look other than the usual suspects?

[gqtuazon]

Here are some few shots from this weekend using a D7000 + 70-200mm f2.8 VrII

f2.8 @180mm
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/13964/D7K_071.JPG

@200mm, f3.5
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/15741/D7K_086.jpg

@195mm, f2.8

http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/15741/D7K_074.jpg

[rellik666]

DWI, but that was maybe 18 months ago. I note the price has gone up a lot since then! I just looked and they must have got more stock as the price has dropped a bit. It is $2199. Have had it over the 12 months now and not a problem (touch wood)!:th3:

[nightbringer]

I like the first pic, mainly cos that old guy is rocking a TLR XD

[occifer nick]

Yeah I'm a big fan of the first one as well, my dad had one of those cameras Shame he doesn't now!

[swifty]

The 70-200 VR2's the lens I would dearly like to have and when I do buy a 70-200 it'll be Nikon's VR2 variant.
I have used the VR1 before on DX and loved it. If you use it frequently you won't need to work the guns at the gym so think of it as a $100 saving per month.
I like the 70-200 (VR1) more than both the 14-24 and 24-70 that I use to own but have sold since (aslight regret but that's a different story altogether).
Everything I've seen from the VR2 is an improvement except focus breathing but that's not an area I'm concerned with. Plus I shoot FX which makes the VR2 version a far more logical choice because of corner performance.

[swifty]

Oops..that should be 'focal length breathing' not 'focus breathing.'

[occifer nick]

Well I have definitely moved from wanting the VRI to now wanting the VRII and if im going to save all that money I may as well save for a little bit longer and get the latest model
:p

[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? :p

[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? :p

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 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/member.php?15917-LuciIV) (yes she does take after her name sake, just kidding babe xxx lol) to get a couple more jobs :action:

[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!? :p)
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!? :p)
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 :p

[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.

[occifer nick]

Well I managed to pick up the Nikkor 70-200mm VRII today for a very very good price, practically brand new only pulled out of the bag once for a test shot. Bought from a professional photographer who was selling all his Nikon gear and this was the last item. Absolutely stoked!

[I @ M]

Well I managed to pick up the Nikkor 70-200mm VRII today ----

I hate to state the obvious occifer but -- habeas corpus -- c'mon, it is over 12 hours since your post and not a single image from or even of the alleged offending item. :D

[occifer nick]

Still waiting to hear from Nikon Australia to say that I can come and pick up my D7000 :angry0:
Lol

[swifty]

Well I managed to pick up the Nikkor 70-200mm VRII today for a very very good price, practically brand new only pulled out of the bag once for a test shot. Bought from a professional photographer who was selling all his Nikon gear and this was the last item. Absolutely stoked!

Congrats. I could be as happy as you in about 2 weeks time... fingers crossed!!

[occifer nick]

Stoked, picked up the Nikon D7000 with a new mirror assembly and whacked on the new lens. Bloody heavy! But a beautiful lens you can feel the quality when you are holding it. Posted a couple of pics of my wife in the family section ;) swifty you will love it it's awesome :th3:

[norval]

Congrats Nick. I too was saving for the VR I but due to this great thread, have decided to hang on for the VR II. Nearly there!

[monsters]

Hey Nick,
I finally got hold of a 70-200mm vrii. It's an amazing lens!!!
Thanks for your inputs and comments :D

[Nicalum]

Congrats guys! Just the thread that I need.

[monsters]

Just a few photos taken today using the lens

81177

81173

81174

81175

[occifer nick]

Nice pics Monsters, here is a pic of my niece trying to be serious eating nannys chocolate mousse haha

[object HTMLDivElement]

[occifer nick]

Im loving the lens, just wished I had more opportunity to get out and take more photographs with it. What with work and scuba diving im struggling to find the time lol

[raccoon]

Well Nick, I am prepared to sacrafice myself and break it in for you.. I will take one for the team... Let see one of Nat eating the choc mousse!!!!!

[theVodkaCircle]

Hi Nick. I don't have the Nikkor but a few weeks ago I got the Simga 70-200 f2.8 with VR (Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM)
I'm really happy with it. Not having used the Nikkor glass I can't compare, but the Sigma is quick to focus, has HSM and 3 stops of VR (they advertise 4 but hmmm, maybe)
And it's at least a grand cheaper.
When I got my camera my budget just wouldn't stretch to Nikkor glass but the f2.8 was really important for me. This lens fit the bill nicely.
Anyway, it's always good to have options.
*EDIT: Oops, just saw you already got it. Enjoy! :)

[Tommo1965]

Hi Nick. I don't have the Nikkor but a few weeks ago I got the Simga 70-200 f2.8 with VR (Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM)
I'm really happy with it. Not having used the Nikkor glass I can't compare, but the Sigma is quick to focus, has HSM and 3 stops of VR (they advertise 4 but hmmm, maybe)
And it's at least a grand cheaper.
When I got my camera my budget just wouldn't stretch to Nikkor glass but the f2.8 was really important for me. This lens fit the bill nicely.
Anyway, it's always good to have options.
*EDIT: Oops, just saw you already got it. Enjoy! :)

the sigma you have bought is a first class chunk of glass..and to be honest I was torn between it and the nikkor....I was fortunate to have a camera store credit for $3000..and it was the only reason I was able to get the nikkor...but I was very close to buying the sigma , as all my test showed it was only slightly behind the nikkor offering..and to be honest..a lens that I would have no trouble in owning ...

[Dave67]

Lusted for the 70-200 but could only justify the $ for nikon 80-200 2.8 (only amateur).
If you own a nikon body with an inbuilt focus motor I can thoroughly recommend this as a cheaper alternative :th3: