Nikon lens
Apr 13, 2015 06:06:51 #
BobbyH wrote:
thinking of getting the Nikon 70-200f2.8 lens should i go for the old one or the new vr2 nikon lens its for sports photography.
If you are shooting active sports you don't need VR - which is not effective at shutter speeds less than 1/500 and may introduce 'micro vibrations" that will rob the image of sharpness. If you get a VR lens, turn it off for handheld, unless you are shooting below 1/500 and shooting at static subjects. The best Nikon lens in this category was the AF-S 80-200 F2.8 Clean used copies can be found for under $1000. Only thing I would check would be if Nikon supports it with repair parts. It's been out of production for a while. The next best would be the VRII 70-200 F2.8, then the 80-200 AF-D (if your camera has an autofocus drive), and the first 70-200 AF-S VR. But the difference between them is not that great - they are all excellent lenses.
Apr 13, 2015 06:15:32 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
BobbyH wrote:
many thanks to all for your advise will go for the vr ii lens now the only problem is the wife
Only you know which is more important! :lol:
Apr 13, 2015 06:16:09 #
tell her its a gift for her!!!
RWR wrote:
Only you know which is more important! :lol:
Apr 13, 2015 06:22:57 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
lone ranger wrote:
tell her its a gift for her!!!
And hope she lets you use it! :lol:
Apr 13, 2015 07:31:43 #
You may want to check out the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC (the newest version), it has very good reviews and it is priced at almost half the price of the Nikon 70-200 VR II.
Apr 13, 2015 08:33:20 #
Gene51 wrote:
If you are shooting active sports you don't need V... (show quote)
I had the Nikon 80-200 2.8 MK1 push/pull and its optics are the same as the new lens according to Nikon. The main difference is no VR, it is heavy and focus is on the slow side since it is camera body driven and not AF/S. Other than this is took nice razor sharp images. The only reason I do not have it anymore is attached to my Nikon D300, the total weight is close 4 lbs and after several hours of walking around with this monster I swear one arm was longer than the other. I am just getting old, but seriously it was a fantastic lens and I miss it, but not the weight. It has been my experience that any lens from the first to current 80-200 2.8 will be a great lens but IMHO the newer lens are not as sturdy, more plastic and less metal but much lighter. :thumbup:
Apr 13, 2015 10:15:41 #
Gene51 went through most of the list, all of which I've owned over the years. I presently have the VRII, which I just upgraded to from the VR. I find the VRII to be a better lens in many respects but I do miss the focus stop buttons on the front of the lens. Generally speaking, I prefer the N coating for FF digital. Too bad for you, but you did just miss a $ 300 bonus. Best of luck. Sorry, can't help with the wife!
Apr 13, 2015 10:36:55 #
Gene51 wrote:
If you are shooting active sports you don't need V... (show quote)
I think you meant to say the VR is not effective at speeds greater than 1/500.
Apr 13, 2015 10:42:20 #
steve_stoneblossom
Loc: Rhode Island, USA
skiman wrote:
I think you meant to say the VR is not effective at speeds greater than 1/500.
Maybe 'faster than' and 'slower than' would eliminate confusion.
Apr 13, 2015 11:15:06 #
steve_stoneblossom wrote:
Maybe 'faster than' and 'slower than' would eliminate confusion.
good idea, i was a bit unsure what was being said.
Apr 13, 2015 13:57:25 #
BobbyH wrote:
thinking of getting the Nikon 70-200f2.8 lens should i go for the old one or the new vr2 nikon lens its for sports photography.
Absolutely the Nikon 70-200f2.8 VRII. Better lens the the original VR.
Note:The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC is a better lens for 1/3 less.
Craig
Apr 13, 2015 14:01:17 #
skiman wrote:
I think you meant to say the VR is not effective at speeds greater than 1/500.
Correct. VR is not effective at speeds greater than 1/500.
And I shoot fast action at 1/1000 or faster depending on the available light.
Craig
Apr 13, 2015 15:23:20 #
I recently "traded down" from the 70-200 f2.8 VR2 to the older 80-200 f2.8 (not the even older push-pull version). I just wasn't using it enough to warrant keeping. My problem was I also own the Nikon 70-300 VR and it is so much lighter I always grabbed it instead ans I ran out the door.
Don't worry about the wife. The correct number of lenses to own is n+1...where "n" is the number of lenses you have now. But, in your case, the correct number of lenses for you might be d-1 where "d" is the number of lenses that will cause your wife to leave you.
Don't worry about the wife. The correct number of lenses to own is n+1...where "n" is the number of lenses you have now. But, in your case, the correct number of lenses for you might be d-1 where "d" is the number of lenses that will cause your wife to leave you.
Apr 13, 2015 21:36:32 #
Apr 13, 2015 23:18:47 #
carl hervol
Loc: jacksonville florida
I've got the20-200 vr 1 I got 7 years ago for 600.00 and only 3 months old it a great lens use it for sport best to use a monopod.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.