Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR

Anyway,back on topic,unless you have a ruck of money to spend on a 70-200,get an 80-200 AF-ED,it is a very good lens. I have had both ,sold the 70-200 and kept the 80-200.
 
fracster said:
Anyway,back on topic,unless you have a ruck of money to spend on a 70-200,get an 80-200 AF-ED,it is a very good lens. I have had both ,sold the 70-200 and kept the 80-200.
Click to expand...


I have been seriously considering this as I will never use VR and this gives ne some cash to get the missus her new lens(y)
 
Unless you really need the VR, for dingy churches as an example, save your self a few hundred quid and get an 80-200.
 
I would only buy from the UK, even more so when talking of that kind of money.

That is just me mind you, I would pay £1519 for something from a high street store (Jessops) that I could get for £1300 online, peace of mind means a lot to me.

You could always wait for high street special offers, loads of sales and special offers on at the moment.
 
fracster said:
Unless you really need the VR, for dingy churches as an example, save your self a few hundred quid and get an 80-200.
Click to expand...


I dont have an affliction for churches so could be worth my while looking for the 80-200 instead, all I tend to shoot are aircraft, is it as sharp with a 1.7TC
 
Ziggy said:
I would only buy from the UK, even more so when talking of that kind of money.

That is just me mind you, I would pay £1519 for something from a high street store (Jessops) that I could get for £1300 online, peace of mind means a lot to me.

You could always wait for high street special offers, loads of sales and special offers on at the moment.
Click to expand...

This is whats making me think about a new 70-200, its as cheap as a s/h one at the moment
 
AFAIK,it won`t take any Nikon TC`s,it may however accept a third party one like Kenko,i`m not sure on that to be honest.

If you need 300, you could get a 300 F4 with what you have saved not buying a 70-200,well nearly.
 
The reason I want the white 70-200 is simple......in 2 years time if its in mint condition I should be able to sell it on for roughly what I paid for it yet the others tend to lose out on reselling and the white ones do seem to be more saleable than the black ones even though its only the colour of the body .........dulux could be minted here
 
barneyrubble said:
Not quite as sharp, but still damn good.
Click to expand...

OOOpppss, Sorry - was talking about the 70-200. The 80-200 won't take the 1.7* TC as it's not AF-S. Unless you get the AF-S version.

And if you're shooting aircraft, then the AF-S version is the one to go for.
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
The reason I want the white 70-200 is simple......in 2 years time if its in mint condition I should be able to sell it on for roughly what I paid for it yet the others tend to lose out on reselling and the white ones do seem to be more saleable than the black ones even though its only the colour of the body .........dulux could be minted here
Click to expand...

How on earth do you work that out?
 
the 70-200 is a desirable lens but you dont really hear much accolade for the 80-200, yes the 80-200 is nice but more people would rather own the 70-200.

I would personally and if any 70-200 comes up for sale they get snapped up far quicker than the models that are lower
 
What i meant is, how does the colour of the lens effect the resale value?.....:cautious:
 
right which would you buy

80-200f2.8 used in mint condition
or
70-200f2.8 used in mint condition

same price?
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
right which would you buy

80-200f2.8 used in mint condition
or
70-200f2.8 used in mint condition

same price?
Click to expand...


They won`t be the same price though will they. So the question is silly.....:p

The 70-200 is more desirable to people who need the VR and to people who need the latest gear.
 
I defy anyone to be able to tell the difference between the 80-200 or the 70-200 image quality wise.

Why do you think that new gear means better image quality anyway? Some of the old primes give fantastic results, new lenses may have VR or faster AF,but some of the old glass gives better results than the newer equivalants.
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
right which would you buy

80-200f2.8 used in mint condition
or
70-200f2.8 used in mint condition

same price?
Click to expand...

Same price....never going to happen.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd get the 70-200mm for the extra range.

Realistically I'd get a used 80-200mm for circa £500 rather than the 70-200mm for £1050.
 
sdb123 said:
Same price....never going to happen.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd get the 70-200mm for the extra range.

Realistically I'd get a used 80-200mm for circa £500 rather than the 70-200mm for £1050.
Click to expand...


Exactly....but in 2 years time what is the 80-200 going to be worth and whats the 70-200 going to be worth, the 70-200 will hold more value over a few years dont you think
 
Pete,slightly off topic,but I use an old 35 F2 lens,manual focus jobby, I think it gives far better results than the new 35 F1.8 jobby,it is better built and was a damn sight cheaper.

Just a thought,if you don`t need quick AF,some of the old lenses are very good value.....(y)
 
fracster said:
Pete,slightly off topic,but I use an old 35 F2 lens,manual focus jobby, I think it gives far better results than the new 35 F1.8 jobby,it is better built and was a damn sight cheaper.

Just a thought,if you don`t need quick AF,some of the old lenses are very good value.....(y)
Click to expand...


yeah some of the older stuff is much better but what I am trying to say is in about a weeks time I will be in the position to buy a good lens and which one is going to suit me best for a few years and hold its value best for when I come to move on
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
Exactly....but in 2 years time what is the 80-200 going to be worth and whats the 70-200 going to be worth, the 70-200 will hold more value over a few years dont you think
Click to expand...

Seeing as the 80-200mm has risen in price (2nd hand), your point is a bit null and void really.

Most quality glass retains its value, regardless of age.
 
Peter
get the 70-200mm Lens you know you want it, bite the bullet and get stuck in LOL
if you cave in and buy the 80-200mm you will always be niggling in the back of your mind about the 70-200mm

and dont let anyone tell you that any zoom is as sharp as the flagship 300mm primes from either Nikon or Canon because they are NOT

but its mighty close plus the 70-200 is a great Lens for taking to most airstrips etc

everyone Too's and Fro's shall I get this - shall I get that buy that

buy the best first time then you are confident in your own mind that you have the best
my 2p
Chris
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
yeah some of the older stuff is much better but what I am trying to say is in about a weeks time I will be in the position to buy a good lens and which one is going to suit me best for a few years and hold its value best for when I come to move on
Click to expand...

Good position to be in,either of the lenses mentioned will hold thier value quite well, good glass generally does. If you do want to go down the TC route,perhaps a 70-200 would be better for you.I used mine with a 1.7 TC and it worked quite well..........(y)
 
As for colour thats another thing the white ones do exactly the same but do seem to attract more buyers when selling, but this is unexplainable by me it could be orange with pink dots so long as the image quality is there for me
 
sdb123 said:
You've established you don't need VR and expressed a liking for the 80-200mm. :)



So you will pay double the price to get a 70-200mm just to avoid half the potential depreciation (compared to the 80-200mm) a couple of years down the line? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I dont honestly know yet, i could buy me and the missus one each or just go for what I have been after for a long time and say sod her lol also I have been toying with a bigma each as they are well in the reach and would serve us both more:shrug:
 
I bought a 70-200 VR just last week from ebay seller digigood. He ships from the UK so there is no duty to pay, but the lens comes via the USA. It cost £1200 and was brand new.

Although there is no Nikon warranty, he does provide one years cover. I know this is not as good as a Nikon warranty, but for a saving of over £300 I was willing to take the risk. Second hand ones seem to go for £1000-£1200, so it seemed good value for a brand new one.

If you import from HK, you might have to pay an extra 20% for vat, duty and handling fee. If the lens is £1250, you could end up paying £1500, so you may as well just pop down to your local photo emporium.
 
puddleduck said:
The price of the new 70-200 VR is scandalous IMHO.

Not sure Nikon lenses are that much better than the Canon's versions to justify a £700 premium over the Canon version, and a £400 premuim over the older version....
Click to expand...

Take a look at the pricing of the newer Canon lenses (like the 16-35, 200/2 IS and so on) - it's exactly the same.

Regardless, people who need what it offers will buy it.
 
Radiohead said:
Take a look at the pricing of the newer Canon lenses (like the 16-35, 200/2 IS and so on) - it's exactly the same.

Regardless, people who need what it offers will buy it.
Click to expand...

£2000 for a 70-200 f/2.8 is unprecedented and I think indefensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top