New Lens
Jun 17, 2014 19:32:50 #
Hey gang I am looking at buying a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED II lens Your thoughts would be appreciated, I will take the good the bad and the ugly !
Jun 17, 2014 19:36:58 #
Jun 17, 2014 19:39:56 #
bill Wilen wrote:
Hey gang I am looking at buying a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED II lens Your thoughts would be appreciated, I will take the good the bad and the ugly !
there are cheaper ways to get similar performance in much lighter packages.
Jun 17, 2014 19:40:42 #
I can't afford one; but I think I am going to buy the f/4. It is said to be optically just about as good. It just isn't as fast. I've read nothing but good things about the f/2.8
Jun 17, 2014 20:03:49 #
You will be glad you pulled the plug on this one! Very nice lens and fast too! Just purchased a 1.7 teleconverter for mine and hope to try it out this weekend. The GBH was first photo I took with this lens.
Jun 18, 2014 00:40:19 #
bill Wilen wrote:
Hey gang I am looking at buying a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED II lens Your thoughts would be appreciated, I will take the good the bad and the ugly !
The Good...........The Lens
The Bad.............The Price
The Ugly............The shots you will miss if you don't have it!
Jun 18, 2014 01:19:44 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
bill Wilen wrote:
Hey gang I am looking at buying a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED II lens Your thoughts would be appreciated, I will take the good the bad and the ugly !
Alternatively,
The Bad: weight/size
The Ugly: price
The Good: everything else.
The only way to get better image quality is with primes. There are a few ways to get somewhat comparable and cheaper results (Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR). But if you get the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, there should not be any "if only!" thoughts.
Jun 18, 2014 01:23:50 #
oldtigger wrote:
there are cheaper ways to get similar performance in much lighter packages.
And what would they be?
Jun 18, 2014 01:50:47 #
mcveed wrote:
And what would they be?
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR)
Jun 18, 2014 06:29:34 #
It is a must-have lens. After your bank account recovers, you will love it. (I mean the Nikon 70-200 2.8).
Jun 18, 2014 07:18:55 #
Jun 18, 2014 07:45:46 #
Having researched this thoroughly, I concluded that the only decisive difference among Canon, Tamron and Sigma was price. I suspect the same is true for Nikon.
I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 from digitalrev.com, saved over $200 and received the lens within 48 hours, freight-free. No regrets here.
I bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 from digitalrev.com, saved over $200 and received the lens within 48 hours, freight-free. No regrets here.
Jun 18, 2014 07:54:24 #
bill Wilen wrote:
Hey gang I am looking at buying a Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm 2.8G ED II lens Your thoughts would be appreciated, I will take the good the bad and the ugly !
My main lens. If you can, get it. Downside. Heavy.
Jun 18, 2014 07:59:02 #
I opted for the AF Nikkor 80-200mm F2.8.... No VR or AFS (the in body motor in my cameras drive it fast enough). Saved a ton of money... Got mine used, but they still sell them new, that should tell you something...
Jun 18, 2014 08:01:13 #
I just got the Tamron version in the mail last night. I took a couple of shots of my dogs and OH MY GOD!!! I'm in love I just sorry that I waited so long to pull the trigger. Go for it! If the Tamron is this good I can't begin to imagine the manufacturer's version is. Props to you for going in with both feet!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.