PDA

View Full Version : Nikkor 70-200 2.8 Vr



Stoller
07-24-2007, 12:23 PM
Where should I buy 70-200 2.8 VR. Local shop wants $1,799.00, can I do better somewhere else I can trust?

coldrain
07-24-2007, 01:06 PM
If you do not want to support your local stores (and most stores do not really deserve that anyway in my opinion), you should look at b&h photo video for instance.

They are out of stock at the moment, but the USA version costs $1615, and the grey import (with warranty at b&h) costs $1550.

XaiLo
07-24-2007, 01:57 PM
I picked up my copy at b&h and have been doing business with them for a couple years now without issue. Service has been consistantly fast and reliable. :)

rawpaw18
07-25-2007, 04:38 AM
Picked mine up at B&H as well, I waited till the Nikon rebates were
in effect usually the later part of the year. I ended up paying $1290
after rebate and the promotion code B&H had last year. Their
service has always been good to me.

Stoller
07-25-2007, 05:28 AM
Thanks, I had checked there site but seen they were out of stock. I like to support the local guy, but thats a big difference. Guess the local guy looses. I'll call B&H and see what the waiting list is like for when they get some in.

tcadwall
07-25-2007, 05:49 AM
When making a larger purchase, I find that it never hurts to ask... IOW - Mr Local guy - I know you have to make money to stay in business, but can you meet me half-way? Worst answer you can get is "No" (unless you are in NYC or NJ - then you might get kicked out of the store)

Kellie
07-25-2007, 09:26 AM
My local store was willing to match B&H prices. :) Of course, I had to pay tax which is killer at 7.5%, but there was no shipping charge and I know that this store has a wonderful reputation.

tcadwall
07-25-2007, 11:07 AM
Fortunately my local store competes well on its own. - I am willing to pay more within reason, and pay sales tax if it means that tomorrow, when I want to test out a new lens, or a new body, or some new lighting equipment, etc... They are still there. The biggest thing lacking in online sales, is that ability to truly put a piece of equipment in your hands, to see how YOU like it, and not read the experience of some reviewer (who may have completely different requirements in ergodynamics for instance).

Esoterra
07-25-2007, 10:10 PM
BH Photo is able to offer such a significant difference in price because they order many Nikkor 70-200mm in one fel swoop and get a larger discount per unit, whereas your local store probably purchases 1 maybe 2.. 70-200mm at a time at a higher cost . When they add in their profits to be made it adds up to a few hundred more... then you add in tax...and you are almost $300 more than shopping online. I ordered the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 on Monday thru Calumet photo and they have it listed at 1149.00...B&H has it listed at 1199.00.... all 6 of the camera stores here in Las Vegas I checked have the same lense listed over $1500. Everytime I go to buy a lens, I show them a print up from 2-3 online stores and ask them to price match. They tell me they wont. I tell them they loose my buisness. Its a no brainer.

tcadwall
07-26-2007, 05:39 AM
I know that if I walked into a local chain branded store, they wouldn't help me out at all. But finding employees there that can give good advice is just about impossible as well. Those guys aren't the ones that I need to keep in business. The guy I want to keep in business may or may not (depending on specific item) be able to "price match", but he may be able to at least find a common ground where he can make enough money to warrant the sale. If that is 15% to 20% markup, then I need to decide if I want to contribute toward keeping him in business or not.

This might sound like I am contradicting myself, but hey - economics is not the easiest subject to understand. Start your own business, and you will start to understand quickly - some people want everything for nothing. But a business has to make some money. The customer that a business wants, is one that helps it stay in business. If they "price-match" every item against non-brick and mortar stores, they won't be in business very long. If they can afford to come down a little in order to keep you coming back, they probably will. Big chain stores don't have managers with enough power to make these decisions.

When I bought my 18-200 VRII from my local shop the going price online was higher than list - around $900+ (over a year ago). I paid $675 for it. I didn't get a "special price". When I bought my 50mm f/1.8 the online price was right at $103 or so. I paid $120 at this local shop and didn't care at all that I "overpaid" because I know that they are simply charging honest mark-ups, and doing what they can to serve their customers and STILL stay in business.

Rooz
07-26-2007, 05:47 AM
unfortunately tc, those days are gone for the most part. people want more bang for their buck and the Net has opened up a whole new world of pricing for consumers in relative safety and vastly imprived reliability.

your local mom & pop stores will be gone unless they can provide something unique to keep people away from online discounters. the only thing keeping them in business now are people that havent joined the online world or are still a little skeptical of it but that breed is also waning away and soon no one will be buying from those places unless they either match price or offer something else in return for the mark up.

good "customer service" and a friendly smile isn't worth 20-30% in my book. i'd prefer to spend that on my kids...or more gear. :D

K1W1
07-26-2007, 06:31 AM
good "customer service" and a friendly smile isn't worth 20-30% in my book. i'd prefer to spend that on my kids...or more gear. :D

I disagree there.
I'm in sales and I have been for well over 30 years now, every day I sell things for higher prices than the same item could be purchased elsewhere and our business is going from strength to strength. The reason we get higher prices is simply that we do offer excellent customer service, we have the products in stock, we know what we are talking about and we don't lie to customers.
Of course everybody will try to save a buck where they can but the Internet and online shopping has not only introduced people to cheap prices it has taught many to their detriment about shonks and scams and rip off merchants.
From my own point of view I'm happy to pay a fair price for anything I buy. A fair price is not necessarily the cheapest price it is the price that I feel reflects the value of the item to me and what I am prepared to pay for it in relation to the service I expect from the person selling the item to me. Obviously I'm not going to walk into a reseller and pay $3000 for something I know I can get for $2000 at any number of places but I may well be happy to pay $2000 for something I can get for $1800 if the item potentially requires after sales service and support and I feel that I will get that from the person I am dealing with.

Rooz
07-26-2007, 07:02 AM
I disagree there.
I'm in sales and I have been for well over 30 years now, every day I sell things for higher prices than the same item could be purchased elsewhere and our business is going from strength to strength. The reason we get higher prices is simply that we do offer excellent customer service, we have the products in stock, we know what we are talking about and we don't lie to customers.
Of course everybody will try to save a buck where they can but the Internet and online shopping has not only introduced people to cheap prices it has taught many to their detriment about shonks and scams and rip off merchants.
From my own point of view I'm happy to pay a fair price for anything I buy. A fair price is not necessarily the cheapest price it is the price that I feel reflects the value of the item to me and what I am prepared to pay for it in relation to the service I expect from the person selling the item to me. Obviously I'm not going to walk into a reseller and pay $3000 for something I know I can get for $2000 at any number of places but I may well be happy to pay $2000 for something I can get for $1800 if the item potentially requires after sales service and support and I feel that I will get that from the person I am dealing with.

i always had you pegged for sales...what with yur pleasant dispostion and all. :D

shonks and ripoffs sure, there are risks, but there are shonks and ripoffs in retail aswell. granted there is more of them online but at the end of the day there are reliable ebay and online merchants emerging who are making tens of thousands of transactions with a 99.9% "happy customer" rate. thats a pretty good testament to their reliability in anyones book dont ya reckon ?

as for your situation, theres always exceptions to the rule, from both a seller and buyer point of view. i find there is a threshold where people will be prepared to pay a little higher for something from a retailer rather than online as long as that threshold is not exceeded.

the example you mentioned is a 10% difference, i mentioned 20-30%. but its also the dollar value aswell as the product type. i certianly accept that with some products there is a higher expectation P.O.S service and after sales service, thats a given, but i'll give you 3 recent examples where i bought online instead of a retailer:

sb800:
retail - $700-$800.
d-d photo - $505
hk supplies - $460

now in this scenario, i was prepared to pay the extra $45 from the cheapest price and pick it up from dd. thats the threshold i was prepared to meet for the convenience. however if d-d was not an option, do you think i'd be paying a 40% higher price retail ? not a chance in hell. anyone who would is either ignorant of the better pricing, wealthy enuf to not really care about the money or a complete fool.

70-200VR:
retail - $2900
d-d - $2400
HK - $1900

in this case i was not prepared to pay the $500 more to go to d-d and certainly not prepared to pay retail, so i bought from HK. it didn;t fall within that threshold.

B+W filters:
77mm slim CPF
retail: $279
hvstar: $175

77mm UV
retail: $139
hvstar: $63

again...no way would you pay that for retail no matter how good the customer service was. well, not in my book anyway.

so in this little expermiment i saved myself over $1500. thats a shitload of money. is this an extreme example ? i dunno, maybe it is but every piece of my new gear has been bought online, (or from "grey" importers), and the reason i bought it online was becasue the savings were significant. maybe some people dont mind paying that much difference, not this little black duck though. :)

K1W1
07-26-2007, 03:20 PM
The savings that you have outlined are significant and worthwhile (equal to a D200 body when you think about it) I just hope that in your pre purchase stages you didn't go into a retailer and fondle and play with any of the products and use the resources or the time and expertise of a salesperson when you actually had no intention of buying.
IMO if people are going to buy online (and they have every right to) they should research online as well. They should not use bricks and mortar resellers simply as a showroom and demonstration facility.
BTW I do buy online as well and I agree that there are some very good eBay resellers. I just do not buy everything based on price alone.

longroad
07-26-2007, 05:25 PM
Whilst Im sure its a great lens, for that price you could pick up two (maybe three) other excellent lenses including one up to 300mm... personally I've never had a desire to purchase the 70-200 due to its pricing. I'd rather have 2 lenses covering that range and forego the f2.8 (depends on your needs i guess).

Esoterra
07-26-2007, 05:26 PM
i always had you pegged for sales...what with yur pleasant dispostion and all. :D

shonks and ripoffs sure, there are risks, but there are shonks and ripoffs in retail aswell. granted there is more of them online but at the end of the day there are reliable ebay and online merchants emerging who are making tens of thousands of transactions with a 99.9% "happy customer" rate. thats a pretty good testament to their reliability in anyones book dont ya reckon ?

as for your situation, theres always exceptions to the rule, from both a seller and buyer point of view. i find there is a threshold where people will be prepared to pay a little higher for something from a retailer rather than online as long as that threshold is not exceeded.

the example you mentioned is a 10% difference, i mentioned 20-30%. but its also the dollar value aswell as the product type. i certianly accept that with some products there is a higher expectation P.O.S service and after sales service, thats a given, but i'll give you 3 recent examples where i bought online instead of a retailer:

sb800:
retail - $700-$800.
d-d photo - $505
hk supplies - $460

now in this scenario, i was prepared to pay the extra $45 from the cheapest price and pick it up from dd. thats the threshold i was prepared to meet for the convenience. however if d-d was not an option, do you think i'd be paying a 40% higher price retail ? not a chance in hell. anyone who would is either ignorant of the better pricing, wealthy enuf to not really care about the money or a complete fool.

70-200VR:
retail - $2900
d-d - $2400
HK - $1900

in this case i was not prepared to pay the $500 more to go to d-d and certainly not prepared to pay retail, so i bought from HK. it didn;t fall within that threshold.

B+W filters:
77mm slim CPF
retail: $279
hvstar: $175

77mm UV
retail: $139
hvstar: $63

again...no way would you pay that for retail no matter how good the customer service was. well, not in my book anyway.

so in this little expermiment i saved myself over $1500. thats a shitload of money. is this an extreme example ? i dunno, maybe it is but every piece of my new gear has been bought online, (or from "grey" importers), and the reason i bought it online was becasue the savings were significant. maybe some people dont mind paying that much difference, not this little black duck though. :)

In regards to the $505 for the SB800 are you speaking in AUS dollars? Is that comparable to $330 US dollars...because that really seems like a LOT of money... the 70-200 almost 3 grand... wow... that really seems expensive.

Esoterra
07-26-2007, 08:15 PM
Whilst Im sure its a great lens, for that price you could pick up two (maybe three) other excellent lenses including one up to 300mm... personally I've never had a desire to purchase the 70-200 due to its pricing. I'd rather have 2 lenses covering that range and forego the f2.8 (depends on your needs i guess).

Yeah...but once you get used to the sharpness, color, clarity, and brilliance that the High end Nikkor and Canon glass produces... its very hard to go back to an optically lower quality lens...very hard!

TNB
07-26-2007, 08:36 PM
I'd rather have 2 lenses covering that range and forego the f2.8 (depends on your needs i guess).
...and how many shots you want to miss.

longroad
07-26-2007, 09:33 PM
Yeah...but once you get used to the sharpness, color, clarity, and brilliance that the High end Nikkor and Canon glass produces... its very hard to go back to an optically lower quality lens...very hard!

*shrug*
There's alot of other quality lenses out there.

TNB
07-26-2007, 10:02 PM
*shrug*
There's alot of other quality lenses out there.
Since you brought it up then, which 3-party lens is equal to the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR? Why? Links?

wh0128
07-26-2007, 10:06 PM
Since you brought it up then, which 3-party lens is equal to the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR? Why? Links?

I'd like to see the links as well. I don't think any 3rd party lens is capable of even coming close to the 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

I'd say if you don't want this to be your hobby and want it to slowly merge into a career, get the 70-200 over any other lens. If not, then just get a decent quality lens.

Rooz
07-26-2007, 10:46 PM
the 80-200 f2.8 is an excellent lens and almost as sharp. no VR of course.
no you don't NEED the 70-200VR but this is the old debate isnt it ? you dont need a d200 or d80 either, seems a d40 will do you just fine. it all depends on your needs and budget.

i have used almost all the variations of the 80-200 and most of the canon lens' in this range aswell, and while they are fine lens', personally, i feel the 70-200 is the best $2k i have ever spent on camera equipment. it handles beautifully, is sharp as all buggery, silent, accurate and super fast. i didnt need it but i sure as hell wanted it !! lol :)

T06
07-27-2007, 12:06 AM
the 80-200 f2.8 is an excellent lens and almost as sharp. no VR of course.
no you don't NEED the 70-200VR but this is the old debate isnt it ? you dont need a d200 or d80 either, seems a d40 will do you just fine. it all depends on your needs and budget.

i have used almost all the variations of the 80-200 and most of the canon lens' in this range aswell, and while they are fine lens', personally, i feel the 70-200 is the best $2k i have ever spent on camera equipment. it handles beautifully, is sharp as all buggery, silent, accurate and super fast. i didnt need it but i sure as hell wanted it !! lol :)

...... theres a little four letter word we try not to shout out in public that just keeps springing to mind when you see the results of this lens too.;):D

coldrain
07-27-2007, 04:01 AM
Since you brought it up then, which 3-party lens is equal to the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR? Why? Links?
The person mentioned 300mm. So I think he wants more for less, and does not look at the VR and f2.8 the 70-200 VR offers.

One lens that comes to mind then is the excellent (but very different) Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX APO HSM. It is very sharp and contarsty, upto 300mm. So in longer focal lengths it will beat the 70-200 VR in areas.
It does lack f2.8 over the 100-200 range. And it does lack VR.
It is however cheaper and does offer HSM.
B&H price: $1100.

That will leave us about $400 for a second lens... So I do certainly not get 3 great lenses for the price of a 70-200 VR. Maybe just two, if I would combine it with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 or Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, which will give me some wider aperture in the range where it matters most in my opinion, the portrait range.

So... the poster may have half a point, in that he can get a 300mm zoom lens of at least the same quality for less. But he will not get 3 great lenses including a great 300mm lens, and he will lose the VR (he did state he did not care about the f2.8).

coldrain
07-27-2007, 04:10 AM
The only other option on Nikon that I see to have great 300mm below the price of the 70-200 VR would be the Nikon 300mm f4. But it costs $1125 (B&H), not leaving much for the lower end of the zoom range of the 70-200 VR.

So, the only real option to have the same or better quality, and then upto 300mm, is the Sigma 100-300 f4. And you will lose image stabilization.

tekriter
07-27-2007, 06:14 AM
All of these dicussions end up being a balancing act - what are YOUR needs, what is YOUR budget??

No one else can decide those things for you. But as to the relative worth of the 70-200 VR, just realize that the people who bought it did so for a reason, and it is highly recommended, even at the price it commands.

I shoot a lot of high school sports, but couldn't come up with the $1500 or so when I needed a lens. So I ended up with the 80-200 non-VR, and as sharp as it is, I do wish it had the AFS focusing. I absolutely need the f2.8, though - high school football here is primarily a night sport.

But that lens has already paid for itself with the sports shots I've sold, so before high school football season starts here I'll probably sell the 80-200 af-d and get the VR.

Stoller
07-27-2007, 06:18 AM
I'm replacing my third party (sigma) 70-200 2.8 lens. The lens has served me well and have made good money with it, but for half the price it has it's faults. It is more like a 70-185 a documented problem with the lens which has not been a problem for me. The main problem is in the longer part of the range the lens is soft particularly at wider apertures, apertures wider than F8 at 200mm the lens sucks. Sorry Sigma guys but have dump many shots that were unsellable.

I must have 2.8 fast lens. I shoot canine action events at higher shutter speeds. Sharpness is a must. The Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR is everything I need from what I have read in reviews. Yes, the VR will do nothing for me because the higher shutter speeds used for action, you never know might go to a dog event and have a wedding break out. =)

Price does not matter to me I will recover the cost, sharp pictures are a must. Sigma stuff has worked well but I'm ready for pro glass.:D

TNB
07-27-2007, 09:42 AM
The person mentioned 300mm. So I think he wants more for less, and does not look at the VR and f2.8 the 70-200 VR offers.
Why don't you simply let the member reply to my question instead of interjecting what you think he wants? You failed to answer my question anyway, especially since the title of this thread deals specifically with the 70-200mm F/2.8 VR. If you want to take his place, then provide some links to which third party lens is equivalent to the Nikkor lens being discussed.

If it's an issue of costs, then perhaps, it's just an issue of denial as well as in "I don't need to spend that money when I can get this instead"--well guess what, if that freaking 70-200 F/2.8 VR wasn't so great, then it probably wouldn't be in such high demand and if it wasn't in such high demand, the costs probably wouldn't be as high and rising. Sure someone can purchase a "Yugo", then again, not everyone may want a "Yugo" and want someone better--choice. Quite frankly, there are different levels of photographers on this forum and if the theme is nothing other than the bottom line, other "high dollar" camera companies would have gone out-of-business long ago. The "pro lenses" would have also probably been discontinued as well.


So, the only real option to have the same or better quality, and then upto 300mm, is the Sigma 100-300 f4. And you will lose image stabilization.
There is also another option and that is what I own: The 70-200mm F/2.8 VR with the Nikkor 1.7x TC which brings it to 340mm. Of course, there is a "cost" involved.

Consequently, if you or anyone wants to go "cheap" or lesser quality, then go cheap or lesser quality. However, that is no reason to post on specific threads where people are trying to purchase a "pro" lens for a good price in an attempt to pursuade them to purchase something else. Quite frankly, this reminds me of a poor sales tactic as when someone tries to sell someone something else because they don't sell the merchandise sought by the consumer.

coldrain
07-27-2007, 10:37 AM
Wow, did you ever read my post in a very biased and negative way. Most, if not all, of your reaction is irrelevant and has no baring in my post.

Oh well.

But to think the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a lesser lens just shows you do not know much or anything about that lens.
And if you think the 70-200 f2.8 with 1.7x TC will reach the performance of the 100-300 f4, you are wrong. At least not in resolution and contrast.

TNB
07-27-2007, 11:00 AM
Wow, did you ever read my post in a very biased and negative way. Most, if not all, of your reaction is irrelevant and has no baring in my post.

Oh well.

But to think the Sigma 100-300mm f4 is a lesser lens just shows you do not know much or anything about that lens.
And if you think the 70-200 f2.8 with 1.7x TC will reach the performance of the 100-300 f4, you are wrong. At least not in resolution and contrast.
Of course my post has bearing since the fact of the matter this is about the Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens. You yourself wrote that the Sigma is "of at least the same quality for less", yet mentioned that the Sigma does not have VR. And you know (or should know) there is an added cost for VR. And while you can't capture those low light shots with that Sigma lens, I still can since it is F/2.8 VR. Think about. Then again, do you even own a Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens?

coldrain
07-27-2007, 11:11 AM
Of course my post has bearing since the fact of the matter this is about the Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens. You yourself wrote that the Sigma is "of at least the same quality for less", yet mentioned that the Sigma does not have VR. And you know (or should know) there is an added cost for VR. And while you can't capture those low light shots with that Sigma lens, I still can since it is F/2.8 VR. Think about. Then again, do you even own a Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR lens?
Can you stop these negative attacks? You always do that to any post of mine.

Now just try to re-read my post as if it was Rooz who wrote it.

Then you will mayb notice some obvious things:

I put INTO DOUBT what the person was saying:
That, even though he does not crave f2.8, he could put a 3 lens set together that reaches 300mm and covers the rest of the focal range.

So, I came up with the ONLY lens I can think of that is equal or better than the 70-200, and I even pointed out you then will lose VR.

Then I pointed out that that lens costs over $1000, and that you will NOT have enough money to cover 2 other high quality lenses.

THAT is what my post was about. And your negative rant to my post does not make sense at all, in this light. It just means you read every one of my posts with one hell of a negative bias.

And then again, do you even own a Sigma 100-300 F4? Or a Canon EOS 30D? Or a Audi TT? What does that question have to do with ANYTHING?

TNB
07-27-2007, 02:44 PM
And then again, do you even own a Sigma 100-300 F4? Or a Canon EOS 30D? Or a Audi TT? What does that question have to do with ANYTHING?
Or better yet, what do your questions have to with the subject of this thread which is a Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR? Quite frankly, if you don't want me to comment about YOUR posts, DON'T respond to my posts, especially since my original post was NOT to you and has to do with a lens that you don't own.

coldrain
07-27-2007, 02:49 PM
Or better yet, what do your questions have to with the subject of this thread which is a Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR? Quite frankly, if you don't want me to comment about YOUR posts, DON'T respond to my posts, especially since my original post was NOT to you and has to do with a lens that you don't own.
I ahve NO problem with you commenting! I have a problem with you totally misunderstanding my whole post and then attacking me on it.
Above I explained to how you misread my whole post, and you do not even go into that. Why are you so hostile.

And no, WE DO NOT have to own ANYTHING in order to post about things.

TNB
07-27-2007, 02:50 PM
That's obvious based on your post count.

Esoterra
07-27-2007, 03:02 PM
*shrug*
There's alot of other quality lenses out there.

A good example of "ignorance is bliss"

Kellie
07-27-2007, 04:22 PM
A good example of "ignorance is bliss"

Ain't that the truth. I made the mistake of testing a 70-200 VR. Sold the 70-300 VR and am now starting to save my pennies. Yes, I am a perfect example of paying twice. :p

Rooz
07-27-2007, 04:27 PM
Ain't that the truth. I made the mistake of testing a 70-200 VR. Sold the 70-300 VR and am now starting to save my pennies. Yes, I am a perfect example of paying twice. :p

lol you and me both. i've been thru 3 telephotos to get to where i am now thinking, "it can;t be that good...it can;t be worth THAT much." well...unfortuately...it is.

i think chris may have been a little harsh with longroad, (who is a she btw). the 70-200 isn't for everyone cos of its price and size. i think andy, kiwi and reg in particualr have shown what can be achieved with much cheaper glass when used properly.

Esoterra
07-27-2007, 04:36 PM
My comments were not meant to be harsh.

Kellie
07-27-2007, 04:42 PM
i think andy, kiwi and reg in particualr have shown what can be achieved with much cheaper glass when used properly.

Yes, in the hands of a good photographer the less expensive lenses can work wonders!

I have no idea if I'll ever buy a 70-200 VR. I'm just not using telephoto much. The Tamron is glued to my camera. I better not test the Nikon 28-70/2.8 or I'll be in trouble. I'll stay in my state of blissful ignorance for now. ;)

longroad
07-27-2007, 04:49 PM
well gee I didn't intend for my little comment to turn into a war.
I don't spend a lot of time at this forum and at the time, I admit I must not have read the original post thoroughly. I didn't realise this guy was a pro and/or wanted a pro level lens for paid photography. If thats the case then yep, spend what you gotta spend.

My comments were based on hobby/amateur photography for which we often see people who believe they need whiz bang expensive lenses to get good results when you can get a couple of very good lenses for the same price, not to mention getting a reach of more than 200mm.

I'd apologise for the ignorant comment, but hey this thread has turned out interesting :D

Ps - For the person who asked me "which 3rd party lenses i'd recommend instead". Who said anything about 3rd party? :rolleyes:

TNB
07-27-2007, 05:00 PM
Ps - For the person who asked me "which 3rd party lenses i'd recommend instead". Who said anything about 3rd party? :rolleyes:
If it ain't Nikon, it's third-party. And if it ain't a Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8 VR, then it is probably not as good. ;)

VTEC_EATER
07-27-2007, 05:04 PM
Boy, its a good thing I own a 70-200 VR. I would hate for everyone here to laugh at me and post snide remarks for owning anything lesser. :rolleyes:

Esoterra
07-27-2007, 05:14 PM
All this elitist bull crap lol

TNB
07-27-2007, 05:19 PM
All this elitist bull crap lol
That reminds me, didn't you pick up the 17-55mm F/2.8 too, Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 that is? ;)

Rooz
07-27-2007, 06:21 PM
Boy, its a good thing I own a 70-200 VR. I would hate for everyone here to laugh at me and post snide remarks for owning anything lesser. :rolleyes:

thats how i feel everytime some asshole with a d200 posts. :D:p

TNB
07-27-2007, 06:38 PM
But at least with a D80, you may not catch as much flack as I did when I showed up at a local camera club meeting with a D50 by the Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT) owners who all tried to convert me over to the Canon camp because of the quality of a $7,000.00 lens which none of them owned. Of course, that stopped when I showed up with the D200. And none of the D2Xs and Canon 1DS shooters that I have encountered, club or not, have said anything bad about the D200. The only bad thing is that I could have borrowed that $7,000.00 Canon lens if I would have shot Canon from a 1D/1DS (Mark III/II) shooter.

XaiLo
07-27-2007, 08:30 PM
TNB, I bet I've caught much more flak over the D40...lol and while I'm at it let me shed a tear for you jumping all over coldrains case (tear):rolleyes: sniff sniff I can see clearly now lol.:D I have to say it's been interesting reading this thread poor 70-200mm how dare Nikon charge so much for a piece of glass that's just awesome. Yeah I guess one could save a few hundred dollars and buy something else but to deprive one of the pleasure and sheer joy of it all. ah well like the old Porchse motto goes Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR "there is a difference." :)

It's amazing how easily a thread can go off topic:)

jcon
07-27-2007, 08:50 PM
thats how i feel everytime some asshole with a d200 posts. :D:p


Well youre gonna feel that way again.... :p


Im sure I dont need to point this out, but the 70-200 F2.8 is worth every penny and its not just for "pro photographers". Anyone that loves taking pictures and owns a Nikon can and should own this lens!

If you want to claim you can buy 2-3 other lenses at similar quality for the same price, I would say lay off the drugs.... first of all, thats not really possible, secondly, why would you want to carry 3 lenses when you could just carry one???

One lens I wouldnt hesitate to suggest if someone didnt want the 70-200 because of short range, it would be the 70-300 VR. Although its not as good as the 70-200!

Esoterra
07-27-2007, 10:00 PM
thats how i feel everytime some asshole with a d200 posts. :D:p

ROFLMAO.... that was funny Rooz.

T06
07-28-2007, 02:48 AM
thats how i feel everytime some asshole with a d200 posts. :D:p

post...........:D

see it's like I said earlier, now everyones mentioning that four letter word when the 70-200VR is mentioned.:D

TNB
07-28-2007, 08:35 AM
TNB, I bet I've caught much more flak over the D40...lol
That I wouldn't doubt, especially if you were to show up at some place like I did when I first purchased the D50.

Esoterra
07-30-2007, 11:05 AM
That reminds me, didn't you pick up the 17-55mm F/2.8 too, Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 that is? ;)

Ya.. I have it on order. Everywhere I have looked is back ordered. Something to look forward to!

aparmley
07-31-2007, 06:23 AM
I'm a little confused by this whole discussion. The OP:


Where should I buy 70-200 2.8 VR. Local shop wants $1,799.00, can I do better somewhere else I can trust?

You can save about $150-180 if you purchase it online. Is that worth it? Thats for you to decide.

Jesus people: this is what it boils down to in bold:



I must have 2.8 fast lens. I shoot canine action events at (DEMANDING) higher shutter speeds. Sharpness is a must. The Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR is everything I need from what I have read in reviews. Yes, the VR will do nothing for me because the higher shutter speeds used for action, you never know might go to a dog event and have a wedding break out. =)

Price does not matter to me I will recover the cost, sharp pictures are a must. Sigma stuff has worked well but I'm ready for pro glass.:D

Just buy it and be happy. . . ;)

tekriter
07-31-2007, 06:50 AM
What I find strange about this situation is that the 70-200 2.8 VR is out-of-stock at so many dealers...

things that make you go "Hmmmm"...

VTEC_EATER
07-31-2007, 08:09 AM
Why is that so strange? Nikon only makes so many lenses per year, and there is apparently more demand then there is supply. Seems logical to me.

Stoller
08-01-2007, 06:01 PM
Checked Monday and my local guy already sold his Nikkor 70-200 2.8, I was kind of bummed considering no one seems to have one now.

Just got email notification from B&H so I jumped online and ordered it. Can't wait to compare it to my Sigma 70-200 2.8. I will try to post some comparison shots if anyone is interested.

Now all I need is the Nikkor 28-70 2.8 to replace my Sigma 28-70 2.8. Another $1,500 yikes! I also hear it's a great piece of glass. I know it's not wide enough, but the range has been perfect for the close up dog event stuff I've been shooting. I have other lenses for the scenery stuff, 17-70 and 10-20.

K1W1
08-01-2007, 07:13 PM
Why is that so strange? Nikon only makes so many lenses per year, and there is apparently more demand then there is supply. Seems logical to me.


I read somewhere the other day that Nikon have recently announced that they have just produced their 40 millionth lens. That's a very large truck load of glass in anybodies language. :)

Esoterra
08-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Checked Monday and my local guy already sold his Nikkor 70-200 2.8, I was kind of bummed considering no one seems to have one now.

Just got email notification from B&H so I jumped online and ordered it. Can't wait to compare it to my Sigma 70-200 2.8. I will try to post some comparison shots if anyone is interested.

Now all I need is the Nikkor 28-70 2.8 to replace my Sigma 28-70 2.8. Another $1,500 yikes! I also hear it's a great piece of glass. I know it's not wide enough, but the range has been perfect for the close up dog event stuff I've been shooting. I have other lenses for the scenery stuff, 17-70 and 10-20.

the Nikkor 28-70 is a great piece of glass, dont get me wrong, and if the focal length is just what you need then great; however I would strongly consider the Nikkor 17-55. Everyone I know that has both lens' say that they prefer the 17-55 over the 28-70 because its wider angle really does come in handy and the optics are the finest Nikon has made. They find that between the 2 lenses the 17-55 spends more time on the camera body because of its wider versitility. Just food for thought.

Stoller
08-01-2007, 10:15 PM
I hear you Chris and I considered the 17-55, but I'm shooting dog events like agility, schutzhund and dog shows. Depending on the event ring size I'm shooting with the 70-200 in the 100 to 200 range or my current 28-70 in the 40 to 70 range. Never close enough to need anything wider. 55 would come up short. I know I had the 18-55 kit lens with my D50 when I started this stuff.

If I could make money with my scenery shots maybe I could justify the 17-55. I have found people pay more for photos of their dog than their tree or house, but maybe I don't have that eye for scenery like you. :D

Esoterra
08-01-2007, 10:44 PM
I hear you. no worries. make sure you post some pictures when you get that lens... Im sure its a beaut!

Stoller
08-08-2007, 06:55 PM
Received my Nikkor 70-200 2.8 VR from B&H today, Awesome! First impression it smokes my Sigma 70-200 2.8

I snapped a few shoots when I got home. Will do comparisons shoots on tripod this weekend.

1/160
f2.8
ISO 200
95mm
http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/MNT X01.jpg

1/160
f2.8
ISO 200
140mm
http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/MNT X02.jpg

TNB
08-09-2007, 11:06 AM
Love the look on the dog and nice shot of the bird. You should really enjoy that lens, I know I have. ;)

Stoller
08-11-2007, 06:44 PM
My first comparison shots of Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Sigma 70-200 2.8.
D220, Tripod, Remote in Aperture mode set to 2.8 this is where I know the sigma gets soft. Star on boot is center focus point.

http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/sigmafull.jpg
http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/nikonfull.jpg

Fullsize crop out of photos above. Sigma left, Nikon right
http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/sigma70-200 200mm f28.jpghttp://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/nikon70-200 200mm f28.jpg


More fullsize crops at 85mm for Sigma left, 82mm for Nikon right
http://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/sigma70-200 85mm f28.jpghttp://mlrc.us/mnt/dcresource/test/nikon70-200 82mm f28.jpg

To windy to do outside test shots today even on a tripod. I think this shows what problems I had with the Sigma. It shows up more when the subject is 40 or 50 yards, but shows up even in this 15 foot test. Is it worth twice the price? You decide.:D

jcon
08-11-2007, 09:58 PM
My first comparison shots of Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR and Sigma 70-200 2.8.
D220, Tripod, Remote in Aperture mode set to 2.8 this is where I know the sigma gets soft.


:eek: How did you get your hands on one of those! You must be related to Mr. Rockwell?!?!?:p:D:D

Thanks for taking the time for the comparisons. I think its "clear" that the Nikon is worth every cent.

Rooz
08-12-2007, 02:05 AM
another point about the 70-200VR is that it just "feels right". i dont know how to explain it any better than that. everything is just right, the dampness of the zoom and MF override, the feel of the material, the sound, (or lack of it), the speed...everything is just....well, it's just right.

i dont know if that makes much sense at all but for those that have used one, you will know what i mean. its akin to the feel of the d200. it's just "right".

XaiLo
08-12-2007, 05:26 AM
Oh so tru:)

Stoller
08-12-2007, 08:43 AM
:eek: How did you get your hands on one of those! You must be related to Mr. Rockwell?!?!?:p:D:D

Thanks for taking the time for the comparisons. I think its "clear" that the Nikon is worth every cent.

With the 70-200 2.8 VR the D200 performs like a D220...:D

Stoller
08-12-2007, 08:52 AM
another point about the 70-200VR is that it just "feels right". i dont know how to explain it any better than that. everything is just right, the dampness of the zoom and MF override, the feel of the material, the sound, (or lack of it), the speed...everything is just....well, it's just right.

i dont know if that makes much sense at all but for those that have used one, you will know what i mean. its akin to the feel of the d200. it's just "right".

Your right, the lens feels very at home on the D200 with the MB-D200. Very balanced and controls where they need to be. I was surprised the Nikon was smaller diameter than the Sigma which makes it easier to handle. The Nikon is a touch longer.