Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    62

    Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

    Greetings all,

    I'm planning to buy the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR sometime next year. I've read some reviews about it and its famous "bokeh" effect. I've been wondering if there are other cameras that would give me the same (or almost same) results as this one but for cheaper price. I don't mind paying more for "obvious" enhanced pictures but if the differences are very tiny I'd definitely want to save my money.

    I have the 18-70mm lens that comes with the D70s and a 50mm 1.8 lens. So, I wanted to buy that lens for many reasons:

    1. Very sharp photos taken without a tripod (portraits on the street, shooting objects while moving around).
    2. The bokeh effect (I know the 50mm does a nice bokeh effect, wondering if the 70-200mm would do a better job)
    3. Better quality (over all) lens that would make my photos look better

    Do you suggest that I should go ahead and buy or probably I dont need it and there are other lenses that does what I want but for cheaper price.

    Note: I am planning to buy the D300 as well.
    Nikon D70s, 18-70mm AF, 50mm f/1.8 AF.

    Future plans: D300, Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, Nikkor 85mm f/1.4(or 1.8).

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    That is a tremendous lens, and you can research the internet for reviews, comparisons, etc. and you won't find much negative at all.

    The Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 D is a great lens, while it won't focus on a D40, it will focus on your camera. Some people complain about sluggish focus time (specifically on D50 I think) since it is not AF-S, but when I have used it on my D70s and others have commented on use with a D200 the focus speed has been less of an issue. I think it has to do with how beefy the camera's focus motor is as well as what your expectations are, and of course the specific subject matter. This lens also does not have VR which is a very good thing to have especially on a tele zoom lens. However the optics on the 80-200mm are very good, definitely more resolving power than the D70s sensor but not quite the resolving power of the newer 70-200mm. This can't be said of my 18-200mm which I like a lot, but is more of a lens that is extremely handy than a lens that is extreme performance.

    Since the 80-200mm has been replaced by the 70-200mm you can probably find a decent deal on it, but go to Thom Hogan's site to get a good idea of a comparison between 80-200mm and 70-200mm.

    --edit--

    I just realized that there is an AF-S version of the 80-200mm f/2.8... The specimen that I did some shooting / testing with, was not AF-S... I am not sure how many of the AF-S version are available... But that would probably be the ideal version to purchase.
    Last edited by tcadwall; 09-19-2007 at 07:54 AM.
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    If you can afford the 70-200VR, get it. Its the best in its range, by far! You do have cheaper alternatives that are great aswell, but nothing that will equal the 70-200VR.

    Pair that with your eventual D300 and you will be one pleased photog!
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maryland's Eastern Shore
    Posts
    2,143
    Nice bokeh for sure, Just dissolves into the background.
    Lost the exif on this one, but believe it was 200 2.8. I am not
    A flower shooter(like I had to tell you), just wanted to show the
    creamy background.

    Attachment 28781

    Now as far as street shooting, it will draw attention to you.
    So complete candids may be tough to get. Being around 9" long and weighing 3 pounds! It is not very stealthy.

    It is a little softer wide open at 200mm, when compared to the
    rest of the range of the lens. It is heavy. Have read reports of flaring,
    but I have not experienced this. Use the hood in bright situations
    and you should be fine. Something else to consider, minimum focus
    distance is about 6'. Certain compositons may be out of the question.

    Would not trade it for any other lens in this range!
    Last edited by rawpaw18; 09-19-2007 at 12:52 PM.
    - Rich

    Nikon: D50, 18-70mm, 50mm, 70-200vr
    Kenko: 12mm, 20mm, 36mm Ext Tubes
    Manfrotto: 486RC2
    Benro: A-327 tripod


    My Flickr Photos Here

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    3,650
    The 70-200mm VR is an awesome lens, sharp fast, fast sharp either way you say it! it means great results. Most of the time! it can't compensate for bad technique darn. By far it is my favorite lens, and I don't see that changing any time soon. I had the 50mm for a while it was a nice lens, but I'm a zoom telephoto type of guy. It did not fit in with my style of shooting.
    I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
    unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"


    NikonD?
    and some other Nikon stuff

    0.0%

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    the 85mm f1.4 is the bokeh king. anyone thats used one or has one can testify to that. even stopped down, it produces beautiful bokeh.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by yewsef View Post
    Greetings all,

    I'm planning to buy the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR sometime next year. I've read some reviews about it and its famous "bokeh" effect. I've been wondering if there are other cameras that would give me the same (or almost same) results as this one but for cheaper price. I don't mind paying more for "obvious" enhanced pictures but if the differences are very tiny I'd definitely want to save my money.

    Be careful about terminology here. The camera doesn't have any bokeh affect at all. Bokeh is a quality of the lens. There are lenses that are very good, very poor, and all points in between. Basically, good bokeh occurs when the background blurs to a creamy smoothness with no tendency to show multi-sided blobs (pentagons, septagons).

    I have the 18-70mm lens that comes with the D70s and a 50mm 1.8 lens. So, I wanted to buy that lens for many reasons:

    1. Very sharp photos taken without a tripod (portraits on the street, shooting objects while moving around).

    Tripod is your friend. However, yes, sometimes you want to hold the camera by hand. 70-200VR is not really an up close and personal lens for street photography. It's more of a pick a target out of a crowd lens. I guess it's good if you are a stalker. It's monstrously huge though. 17-55 f2.8, one of the wide primes, 17-35 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8, these are good street shooters. You get right in there with your subject. I would say the 28-70 f2.8, but it's nickname is the beast. It may be a bit intimidating for street shooting. The new 24-70 is much slimmer, so may be a better choice. The 70-200VR is more of a sports shooter, event shooter, something to get you closer, but where you don't need one of the big guns.

    2. The bokeh effect (I know the 50mm does a nice bokeh effect, wondering if the 70-200mm would do a better job)

    18-70: OK bokeh, nothing to write home about.
    50mm f1.8: not so good. Creates distinct septagons.
    70-200: Awesome bokeh
    85mm f1.4: Incredible bokeh (beyond awesome)


    3. Better quality (over all) lens that would make my photos look better

    70-200VR has this in spades. Unless the new 14-24 or 24-70 has surpassed it, many think this is the best zoom Nikon has ever built.

    Do you suggest that I should go ahead and buy or probably I dont need it and there are other lenses that does what I want but for cheaper price.

    This is not something I can say. It's for you to choose.

    Note: I am planning to buy the D300 as well.
    Cool camera. If it had been FX, I might have pulled the trigger, but for now, I'm sticking with my D200.
    Eric Lund
    Nikon D200
    Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
    Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
    Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    62
    Amazing feed back!

    You guys are great, thank you

    OK, let me state my conclusion so far:

    1. There is a AF-S version of the 80-200mm f/2.8 which could be a cheaper version of the 70-200mm (will check it out)
    2. The 70-200mm is the best in its range by far. (so if I can afford it, it will give me much better results for its price range than the other lens) <-- this statement seald the deal here for me I guess
    3. Heavy and Noticeable (not the ideal camera for street shooting). Well, that's a turn off there but i think I can get away with its weight and size in tourist spots, but very hard for a candid shot.
    4. It does't have a "bokeh effect" but it does indeed give an awesome bokeh-like effect, which is a big plus.

    I think I'll check the 80-200 AF-S version and the 85mm 1.4f lenses too, but I've 90% decided on the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Thanks again for the feed back.

    P.S: What's the difference between Nikon and Nikkor lenses?
    Nikon D70s, 18-70mm AF, 50mm f/1.8 AF.

    Future plans: D300, Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, Nikkor 85mm f/1.4(or 1.8).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maryland's Eastern Shore
    Posts
    2,143
    You mentioned in your other thread about shooting soccer, this lens 70-200vr is great for that as well. Af-s lenses are what you want for sports because of the faster focusing the AF-S motor in the lens allows.

    You can only buy the 80-200 af-s used at places like keh.com, you will
    see that at the price you might as well go top shelf. The thing is if
    you buy the best one you do not have to say to youreself if only.
    This lens is an investment, it does not depreciate much if kept in good condition. Check out the prices it goes for used on ebay, keh and other forums.

    Nikon usually announces its rebates in the fall, the 70-200vr will probably be on the list.
    - Rich

    Nikon: D50, 18-70mm, 50mm, 70-200vr
    Kenko: 12mm, 20mm, 36mm Ext Tubes
    Manfrotto: 486RC2
    Benro: A-327 tripod


    My Flickr Photos Here

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Posts
    3,650
    yewsef, while it's definately not a stealth baby. you can still get great candid results from it. the five foot min distance can be a pain at times, but I usually just take a step backwards and zoom in, problem solved. And it is an attention getter but most of the time you can compose adjust and shoot before anyone knows what happened. The weights not an issue for me and for the preformance and range it stands alone.
    I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
    unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"


    NikonD?
    and some other Nikon stuff

    0.0%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •