Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII

N

nikonuser

Messages
2,537
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm thinking of buying this lens and the 2x tc later in the year.
I want to use it for portraits and motorsport, wildlife etc (which I know it may be a bit short for - hence the tc) but it is a lot of money for a lens.
Sooooo....is it worth the money or are there similar lenses f4-5.6 may do just as good a job.
I will be using it on a D700
Thanks
Dave
 
Personally I don't think anything is going to match the 70-200 VRll, it is such a cracking lens. If you need range for motorsports and wildlife then a 300 f4 would be sharp and fast but you won't want that for portraits.
Many folk like the VRl which will be a few hundred cheaper but you will get vignetting and the bottom end is actually 80mm not 70mm.
Another alternative would be an older 80-200 AF-S but they are few and far between.
 
Thanks Gramps you confirmed my thoughts from what I have read previously.
Dave
 
treeman said:
Wasn't there an issue with the VRII not being a true 200mm or something like that?
Click to expand...

Because of 'Focus Breathing' neither the VRl or the VRll is exactly 200mm its something like 192/196 and at the short end the VRl is 80mm whereas the VRll is 70mm - all changeable by a step fore or aft apparently.
 
OP may want to check these out for the full picture.

Thom Hogan Review

Mansurovs Review

Photozone Review

The 70-200 VR II increases the field of view with close focus. This is not uncommon, in fact any IF lens does this to a certain degree, but only a few do so at a similar amount. At minimum focus distance (MFD) at 200mm the 70-200 VR II provides an image angle equivalent to a 135mm lens.

This issue has been wildly discussed in the community after it was initially noted. While the lack of magnification is undoubtly a fact, anyone considering purchasing this lens should carefully check if it's really an issue for his/her kind of shooting. When shooting close to the MFD at the long end regularly the previous model is probably the better choice,since in this usage scenario its drawbacks, especially lack of corner sharpness, will hardly be an issue. For anyone usually shooting at longer distances the increase of the image field will be less of an issue since it's not much wider here compared to other lenses in this class.

There may be minor issues but the Nikkor is, nonetheless, highly recommended
Click to expand...
 
VR won't be of much use to you for motorsport

My 70-200 VR has NEVER been used in VR mode as I can hold it pretty steady anyway, if in doubt though a monopod is way more useful and way cheaper too

At the time I bought the VR version it was twice the price of the similar quality non-VR and I wish I'd saved £600 and bought that instead

f2.8 on the other hand is yummy for such a long lens and focal range

If I couldn't think of anything else to spend £700+ on, then I'd buy the VRII over the older non-VR model; but in the real world I'd hunt around a bit for a used non-VR version and save myself a packet of £s - I find VR a seriously overrated gimmick

DD
 
Thanks guys, some interesting comments their, giving plenty of food for thought!
I will check out the links too.
What about a 70-300 VR for sports and a 135 f2 for portraits.....and save a few hundred ££

Cheers
Dave
 
Last edited:
I have a 70-300 VR which I have used for a few motor sport pics on a D300 and found it reasonably good and also fairly sharp but will suffer with low light. Here's a pic I took with it.


DSC_7948 by Ian_D_83, on Flickr
 
Thanks Ian for the info. and nice shot
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top