|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
close to buying this lens. can any pro give a final bit of advice on it maybe? appreciated. thank you. I have D610 body for it Aug 30 15 03:01 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: One of the best and most popular lenses used by pros. Aug 30 15 03:23 pm Link The original one, right? Not the VRII currently on sale? That lens came out at a time when Nikon had actually stated that they would never offer a full-frame digital camera, and film sales were quickly drying up. As a result, many people feel that the lens was optimized for crop-sensor use, and it does vignette a bit more than it should on full frame, though lens profiles in Lightroom make it a non-issue. It's also open to debate about corner softness, esp at f2.8. I know many people who use the lens on D700's, D750's and D600's with no issues. It's a solid lens, weather sealed, etc. I had one for many years but sold it with my D700 when I moved to a D800, nothing wrong with the lens I just didn't use it enough to justify keeping it. Aug 30 15 03:32 pm Link thank you guys. yes its the VR1 version. it seems in great condition. clean and dust free. here goes 850 bucks. thanks again Aug 30 15 03:48 pm Link Get the VR II. The VR I has serious vignette problem. Yes, Lightroom has the lens correction option. But it's a pain when you have hundreds of photos to do that one by one. Or at least I have not figured out how to do that function in batch? Aug 30 15 04:23 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: That's a good price for this lens. I shoot mine on a D750 and notice vignetting when shooting the sky at small apertures. Otherwise, I never notice it. And if you do, and you use Lightroom, make the correction on one picture and sync the rest with the press of a couple of buttons. Enjoy your new lens. Aug 30 15 04:33 pm Link don't mind the vignetting on the VR1 prefer to have a real 200mm over the VRII Aug 30 15 04:35 pm Link don't start confusing me lol. Aug 30 15 04:39 pm Link The VRi doesn't just vignette - it's also really soft outside of the DX sensor range. It's not horrible, but you can't read text in that area very well. On the bright side, it's a fairly smooth transition, and it looks like you used a spot filter. If you were shooting portraits wide or mostly wide open, that would still be my choice in that price range. If you were stopping down, or using it for sports, I'd recommend Nikon's 80-200 2.8(all versions are about the same optically), or Tamron's 70-200 non-stabilized, if you wanted to save a little weight, and have a halfway decent tripod collar. Aug 30 15 08:46 pm Link I love my 70-200 VR II. My favorite lens for shooting models. Beautiful bokeh at 200/F2.8. Very sharp. Prior to this I used a Sigma 70-200 with no VR and that was a beautiful lens too. The only reason I upgraded to the Nikon was for the VR. Some times auto focus has a hard time in poor light but so do a lot of other lenses. Aug 30 15 09:03 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: It's shit. Why would you waste money on that piece of trash. Aug 30 15 10:53 pm Link Ike Lace Photography wrote: Interesting! Aug 31 15 07:00 am Link I have it best lens, ever for fashion/glamour, it is sharp as hell and has great autofocus. It's a little heavy and pricey around 2400, but I highly reccommend it. I use it 90% of the time as I specialize in beach glamour photography. Aug 31 15 07:16 am Link Ike Lace Photography wrote: I strongly disagree Aug 31 15 07:33 am Link hansenguy62 wrote: $850? Where the heck did you find a 70-200mm f/2.8 for that price? I spent more than that on my 80-200mm f/2.8. Either the person selling the lens to you has no idea how much their lens is worth or they're taking you for a ride. Aug 31 15 08:35 am Link The OP asked about the FIRST version of Nikon's 70-200 VR - not the current one. I would not doubt that a clean but well-used one could be found at that price. It would be cheap, but not cheap enough to raise eyebrows. I got my 70-200 right after the new one started shipping, and I paid about $1200 for it. It was optically perfect, with some minor wear on the barrel. After Tamron and Sigma came out with stabilized versions, the price fell a little more. I would guess a version 1 needs to be near mint to still be worth $1200. There are 3 versions of the 80-200, again all of them basically the same optically. The most recent is an internal focusing lens, and I suspect that would be about $850 if in EX or EX+ condition. The oldest version is a slow to focus, push-pull type, and I would guess that's about $350-$550, depending on condition. All of the 80-200s have better edge to edge sharpness than the 70-200. In fact, stopped down to f/5.6 they have better overall sharpness, but you'd need a chart to tell. The 70-200 has better coatings and bokeh though(not that the 80-200s were bad) and faster AF, which makes it a better choice for any sort of photography where sharpness isn't the main goal. Portraits, for instance. Aug 31 15 03:55 pm Link I have the lens in question and I love it. It's a real workhorse. VERY stable, excellently built, and while it does have some minor vignette, it's easy to batch process the lens correction in LR. Takes just a few seconds even for a large volume of photos. I've shot with this lens for years and see no huge reason for spending the money to upgrade. I love it on my D800. As for the Sigma option, it's really good if you're an amateur and desperately need to have the lens and you're broke. Other than that, I wouldn't use another Sigma lens if it were free. The last one I owned of theirs, a 24-70 f/2.8 I hated so much I blasted it with a .308 sniper rifle. The only thing that stupid piece of shit was ever good at was having it's front element be used as a paperweight on my desk as it was the only thing that survived the blast. Aug 31 15 04:28 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: It is sturdy (if you are careful, little bit of rain or sand is not a problem). It is fast enough for sports (and running children), it is sharp, if you want to find problems there are some. Others have mentioned vignetting (I dont know much about it, I only use it on crop), and some softness (yes a prime lens, say the usual 50mm's etc) are sharper. But as I said, you need to go looking for these issues. The only one where I wished it did a bit better is, if you shoot direct into light. There it gets soft and produces horrible lensflares. Aug 31 15 09:08 pm Link 70-200mm is a great lens. I dont have personal experience with the vr1, but the vr2 is nice. I am also a big fan of the Tamron counterpart, which is significantly cheaper, and personally I find sharper. Aug 31 15 10:20 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Sep 01 15 06:54 am Link Well, there is an easy solution ... If you can get it for $850, get it. Hell, I will !!  Do a test shoot with it, test it and see if you like it ... or not! If you do not like it ... sell it again. You will get $1000 easy on Ebay for that lens in great condition ... Sep 01 15 07:27 pm Link It's a great lens if you need that focal length. It's very versatile. It's one of my go-to lenses. It's very solid as I can attest after having it dropped by my wife a couple of times. Sep 08 15 06:51 pm Link I had the 80-200 f2.8 a great lens but heavy, then I did a ton of research and rented the new Nikon 70-200mm F4. It is lighter than the F2.8 And a lot less money and sharp as a tack on my D750 and my friend another professional uses it on his D 810 and loves it as well. Tremendous lens and easier to carry and I would highly recommend it to anyone! I chose to buy it over the older 70-200 F2.8 and very happy. I also have the 24-70 F2.8 and between the two I am covered! Sep 08 15 09:53 pm Link Thanks, For the last few years I've been thinking that I need to retire my old 80-200 2.8ED, even though on my D800's I get perfect sharp images. Most of my portraits are shot with up to 8000 watts of studio strobe and at f8 to f11 it is sharp as a tack. Guess I can keep loving it. Sep 18 15 10:30 pm Link hansenguy62 wrote: I believe Nikon can do better with this lens. I am waiting for the VR III (hopefully they fix some of the VR II short fall). Sep 19 15 06:51 pm Link  Sep 20 15 12:10 am Link Love the lens. I'm guessing you can correct the vignetting in camera with the D610 like I can with the D700. Set it up once and no need to correct in post, ever. The poster above must mean sharp, not shit...  Sep 20 15 01:20 am Link Chuckarelei wrote: LR makes this task simple. Use "Sync copies" from the settings menu in Develop. Turn off everything but "lens corrections" and you can synchronise as many photos as you like in one go. Sep 20 15 08:45 am Link I have both To me they seem like two totally different animals. Both are beautiful lenses. The original Vr1...If you want a 200mm headshot where you cut the top of the head off and fill the screen with the subjects face this is the lens for you. I shoot hundreds of these at each event...pretty much look like they were shot in a studio. Corner softness and vignette...If you use this lens as an adjustable prime and shoot wide open...Who cares...I don't! The Vr2. Does not have that tight FOV at 200 mm...Probably down 30% over the Vr1. Sharper and better in the studio...Though If you bought it for that you should have bought the f4 A little better at landscape work. Vignette is gone Less distortion If you shoot at f8-11 to get that tack sharp edge...This lens is for you! Sep 20 15 07:57 pm Link Chuckarelei wrote: The VR2 has brutal focus breathing problems that cannot be corrected in post. Vignetting/falloff can. Sep 20 15 09:20 pm Link The VR1 is a phenomenal lens. That being said, check it out thoroughly before you buy. I got mine used on CL for roughly the same price you are paying, did test shots and all, and it looked fine. It wasn't until I tried to use it with a teleconverter later on that I found out the VR motor was shot. Cost me another several hundred to get nikon to fix it, would have been about the same price to just get a new one, but I do love the lens, it's awesome, and I have had no problem using on my FF D4 or D800. The vignetting is there at 200mm but for what I shoot it is effectively unnoticeable and not an issue for me. Wayne hansenguy62 wrote: Sep 21 15 07:28 pm Link I'm a fan of the VRII. No experience with the VRI. I doubt either is terrible for what they do. I tend to be a fan of natural vignetting though. Sep 21 15 08:13 pm Link Robb Mann wrote: I have old photos with my D300 and current photos from my D700. Sep 23 15 02:46 pm Link |
.
