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 !
Hankwt
Loc: kingsville ontario
you will never take it off !!!
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
mcveed wrote:
And what would they be?
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC, Nikon 70-200mm f/4 VR)
It is a must-have lens. After your bank account recovers, you will love it. (I mean the Nikon 70-200 2.8).
Thank you all for your comments, going to buy it today I will keep you posted.
abc1234
Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois
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.
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.
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...
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.