Nikon 70-200 VR on Full Frame

[cambsno]

After an age of thinking about FF, I think I have decided to go for it, and will shortly be on the lookout for a D700 to replace my D300. The only reason is the higher ISO, plus the FF lovelyness that people rave about. However, I am thinking of selling the above lens as I think I will get even less use on FF than I do now, and cant justify a £900 lens spending most of its time at home.

My question to the FF guys is... when do you use yours??

My shooting consists of baby sessions at peoples homes, where I use a 50mm or 24-70. Even with FF, cant see me using the 70-200 in the home. I have used it on occasions on outdoor shoots, but could easily use my 85mm, or my feet! I also use it a lot as a family camera, so when we go out on day trips or holidays. Again, not really a common lens for me to use.

Where I do use it a lot is at the couple of airshows I go to each year, but on the D300 it is a 300mm which is often a bit short anyway, so 200mm on FF would be pretty poor.

I know that I should sell, I would get much more use out of an 85mm 1.4 and D700 than I would out of a D300, 70-200 and 85mm 1.8 and the cost to change would be about the same, or even swap the 70-200 and d300 for a d700 and have a few quid left over too! Its just that this is a wonderful lens and I cant bear to part with it, so either need to realise its potential more, or be reassured that selling it is not that bad. I may go back to the 70-300VR as a cheaper long lens, but would I notice the quality difference to a large degree?

 

[badboy1984]

I'm kinda like you on this, my 70-200 f2.8 don't get use often these days. Specially when i bought a Nikon 28-70 f2.8. Now i use primes and the fast mid zoom more.

I do miss the 70-200 but when i start doing wedding again this year it will come in handy.

If i going to get rid of the 70-200 i may go for a 300mm prime instead or the big sigma 50-500 OS for wild life and anything that require the reach.

In your case, more likely you still won't use the 70-200 much when you move to FF but i personally think is best to keep it till you have a FF camera then decide.

 

[pmac]

Im also not a big user of my 70-200.
i main shoot with the family and the weight and size can be abit much when chasing kids around.
Inside it is abit long also. even the 85 starts to get abit tight.

But i dout i would ever sell it. every time i use it the sharpness blows me away. i would say its sharper than my 85 1.4 ,if not then just as sharp.

if financialy i had to let go of a lens then it would be the one though.

 

[trevorbray]

I use mine on D700 for work. Equestrian Events. I've never used it for anything else. Prefer my 28-70 2.8 'The Beast' for almost everything else and the 50mm takes care of the rest. I only use those 3 lenses. (I'd like an 85 1.4 though)

 

[cambsno]

Thanks. Backs up my thoughts that its an expensive lens that is likely to remain under used.

Still seems like sticking your child up for adoption though!!!

 

[Flashman]

I'm in the other camp... my 70-200 is my most used portrait lens outside of the studio. Primes are great but I like the reaction time of a zoom to catch spontaneous moments, particularly with turbocharged kids!

I guess I was initially influenced by Annabel Williams after doing a couple of her courses a few years ago, 70-200 on FF is the only lens she uses... and she uses it pretty well!

 

[badboy1984]

I'm in the other camp... my 70-200 is my most used portrait lens outside of the studio. Primes are great but I like the reaction time of a zoom to catch spontaneous moments, particularly with turbocharged kids!

I guess I was initially influenced by Annabel Williams after doing a couple of her courses a few years ago, 70-200 on FF is the only lens she uses... and she uses it pretty well!

Good point actually, i remember taking some decent portrait using my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the Lavendar garden last year with friends.