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

Joe T said:
Do you think six months after release it will still be £2000?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it will. RRP will definately still be £2k, with a few dealers maybe shaving off a hundred or so.

I don't see any evidence lens prices are falling. Quite the reverse.
 
Exactly.

Now, consider you're Nikon, or Canon.

You're seeing sales fall across the world, and margins being squeezed everywhere. You have to keep investing in R&D to not surrender the gains you've made in the last 3 years. You're releasing a lens that will be a mainstay for a huge number of news, PJ, sport and wedding photographers, let alone the many, many affluent amateurs who buy lenses like the 70-200 (after all, the 'consumer' arena is well catered for now by your recent zoom offerings). Some will stick with the existing lens, but many will be able to sell that for a price equal to what they paid for it, making the cost to change less onerous.

You have a responsibility to your shareholders to maximise revenue, margin and share price.

Currency hedging has long ago meant rising prices in the EU.

You can sell this new lens at £1999 all day long and it'll be quite likely be sold out after the first pre-orders arrive.

Would you sell it at £1999 or £1399?
 
You may sell at that price,but only to muppets who are prepared to spend that ridiculous amount on that particular lens.

The money conscious people will pass............:)
 
For a lot of those 'muppets' it's simply capex over 3 years, and will be recouped in less than a month.

It's a tool. Buy it or don't.
 
Capital expenditure over three years is fine for the people who make money out of photography and claim it back, for the majority,it is an awful lot of money for one lens.However you dress it up.
 
fracster said:
Capital expenditure over three years is fine for the people who make money out of photography and claim it back, for the majority,it is an awful lot of money for one lens.However you dress it up.
Click to expand...




Its simply a case of can I or cant I
 
I have had a PM from a very well repected member here who hasnt come into this thread and he has told me to go for the best glass I can afford but in different words, meaning the 70-200 as it will and does outshine the 80-200 by miles.

Its an investment whereas the 80-200 s/h is worth about £400 now and dropping (I have checked and its about the going rate) yet s/h 70-200 are still above £1000 and rising?
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
I have had a PM from a very well repected member here who hasnt come into this thread and he has told me to go for the best glass I can afford but in different words, meaning the 70-200 as it will and does outshine the 80-200 by miles.

Its an investment whereas the 80-200 s/h is worth about £400 now and dropping (I have checked and its about the going rate) yet s/h 70-200 are still above £1000 and rising?
Click to expand...

Genuine question. Please can you tell me where I can get the 80 - 200 for around £400. Thanks in advance.
 
second hand they go for anything from 3-400 if you can find one.....hens teeth spring to mind but a new one is only 699 if you can find anyone with one
 
Having got an 80-200 AF-S and hired a 70-200 AF-S VR I can safely say that the IQ is to my eyes equal. (y) The VR is great if you find yourself in lower light and don't want to raise the iso, but I don't need it much at the moment.:shrug: I've not got or owned an 80-200 AF-D and I know the optics are different to the AF-S version, but I've only heard good things about it. I paid about the same s/hand for the AF-S as a new AF-D... is it worth the extra? It was for me, for the super fast and silent AF, but the AF-D is not slow. The AF-D is available easily new or s/hand and the AF-S comes up now and again s/hand.
Would I have the 70-200 if I had the extra to spend? You know I'm not so sure... I would be better off spending it on an 85 f/1.4 for what I shoot I think ;)
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
I have had a PM from a very well repected member here who hasnt come into this thread and he has told me to go for the best glass I can afford but in different words, meaning the 70-200 as it will and does outshine the 80-200 by miles.
Click to expand...

By all means go for the best glass you can afford,nobody is saying the 70-200 is anything other than an excellent lens,what some people are saying, publically, is that for those who have used and owned both,the price difference is not replicated by any vast improvement in IQ.

Dangermouse1964 said:
Its an investment whereas the 80-200 s/h is worth about £400 now and dropping (I have checked and its about the going rate) yet s/h 70-200 are still above £1000 and rising?
Click to expand...

An investment hey? Well it is your money Pete,buy twenty of them and consider it a pension fund....;)
 
fracster said:
Capital expenditure over three years is fine for the people who make money out of photography and claim it back, for the majority,it is an awful lot of money for one lens.However you dress it up.
Click to expand...

It's not a case of dressing it up. The lens is aimed squarely at the professional market, it's as simple as that.

I can't justify the cost of the amazing 200/2VR because it's not required for the photography I do. If I shot indoor sports for a living then I'd have one because I'd need one.

It's the same principle here.
 
Radiohead said:
I bet they sell them as fast as they can make them.
Click to expand...

Possible, but I suspect a lot of those buyers will be folks who want the latest toys and have more money than sense - a demographic Nikon seem to be cleverly tapping up.

I still maintain there is nothing wrong with the older version and the only people who seem to complain about it probably don't even own the lens - let alone make money out of it. Everyone else has been getting on with the 70-200 VR just fine.

The published MTF's don't indicate that its going to be any better - possible a bit worse in the center, and maybe a tad better at the edges. I know where I'd rather critical sharpness be.
 
Its the old version Im looking at buying I dont know why some are making such a fuss really
 
The 70 - 200 VR F2.8 has been criticised for its performance on Full Frame cameras. Does anyone know if any issues have been addressed on the new one?
 
miurasv said:
The 70 - 200 VR F2.8 has been criticised for its performance on Full Frame cameras. Does anyone know if any issues have been addressed on the new one?
Click to expand...

The "problem" has been dreamed up by anally retarded mentalists.

If you are stupid enough to shoot a landscape wide open much past 195mm you get some corner softness with this lens. Thats the "problem".
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
I have had a PM from a very well repected member here who hasnt come into this thread and he has told me to go for the best glass I can afford but in different words, meaning the 70-200 as it will and does outshine the 80-200 by miles.
Click to expand...

So we all know nothing then. :bang:

I can categorically state that the 70-200mm does not outshine the 80-200mm by miles, far from it.

Dangermouse1964 said:
second hand they go for anything from 3-400 if you can find one.....hens teeth spring to mind but a new one is only 699 if you can find anyone with one
Click to expand...

Get your models right. :wave:

V8burble said:
Having got an 80-200 AF-S and hired a 70-200 AF-S VR I can safely say that the IQ is to my eyes equal. (y) The VR is great if you find yourself in lower light and don't want to raise the iso, but I don't need it much at the moment.:shrug: I've not got or owned an 80-200 AF-D and I know the optics are different to the AF-S version, but I've only heard good things about it. I paid about the same s/hand for the AF-S as a new AF-D... is it worth the extra? It was for me, for the super fast and silent AF, but the AF-D is not slow. The AF-D is available easily new or s/hand and the AF-S comes up now and again s/hand.
Would I have the 70-200 if I had the extra to spend? You know I'm not so sure... I would be better off spending it on an 85 f/1.4 for what I shoot I think ;)
Click to expand...

(y)

fracster said:
By all means go for the best glass you can afford,nobody is saying the 70-200 is anything other than an excellent lens,what some people are saying, publically, is that for those who have used and owned both,the price difference is not replicated by any vast improvement in IQ.
Click to expand...

:clap:

miurasv said:
The 70 - 200 VR F2.8 has been criticised for its performance on Full Frame cameras. Does anyone know if any issues have been addressed on the new one?
Click to expand...

No idea about the new one however as I previously posted I shot hundreds of shots with the 70-200mm wide-open with no issue on FF.
 
Radiohead said:
For a lot of those 'muppets' it's simply capex over 3 years, and will be recouped in less than a month.

It's a tool. Buy it or don't.
Click to expand...

Let's replace the word 'muppets' with professionals. (y)

If I earned my living from photography, I'd be able to view purchases as capex. Unfortunately I don't and as a hobbyist can't justify that kind of outlay right now.

:)
 
puddleduck said:
The "problem" has been dreamed up by anally retarded mentalists.

If you are stupid enough to shoot a landscape wide open much past 195mm you get some corner softness with this lens. Thats the "problem".
Click to expand...

I'm yet to notice any problems in the corners of my shots with either the D3 or the D3x.

One thing to bear in mind is that this lens was designed for FF Film cameras. So it was designed with FF in mind.
 
barneyrubble said:
I'm yet to notice any problems in the corners of my shots with either the D3 or the D3x.

One thing to bear in mind is that this lens was designed for FF Film cameras. So it was designed with FF in mind.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And for the life of me I can't understand why anyone would shoot a landscape at f/2.8 (why? you'll be at f/8 or f/11) with a VR lens (why VR? you'll be on a tripod with VR turned off for landscape).

Its all much ado about nothing.
 
Exactly, and with my style of photography, when I'm at F2.8 or F4, to be honest the corners are not going to be part of the interest in the frame anyway. They're going to be part of the background that I'm trying to blur out.

As you say, much ado about nothing, the pixel peepers are at it again.:bang::bang:
 
I think it was on DP Review that I read about the FF issue. I'm not a pixel peeper. I have a D2HS.
 
puddleduck said:
Possible, but I suspect a lot of those buyers will be folks who want the latest toys and have more money than sense - a demographic Nikon seem to be cleverly tapping up.
Click to expand...

They'll buy as well, no doubt. And if I were Nikon I wouldn't care. They had to reissue the lens to finish the 14-200mm f2.8 range with the new designs.

puddleduck said:
I still maintain there is nothing wrong with the older version and the only people who seem to complain about it probably don't even own the lens - let alone make money out of it. Everyone else has been getting on with the 70-200 VR just fine.

The published MTF's don't indicate that its going to be any better - possible a bit worse in the center, and maybe a tad better at the edges. I know where I'd rather critical sharpness be.
Click to expand...

Agreed - and that's why I'm not buying one myself.

It is worth noting that there are some reported AF issues amongst the sports community with this lens, and that's another reason for a reissue.
 
Unless you're shooting FX, there's hardly any point in paying the extra for the VR II model. You'll be paying a £1,000 premium over a mint 2nd hand model for one extra stop of VR (which won't help you with moving subjects) and Nano Crystal Coat which is of agruable value on a telephoto anyway. Main advantage of the VR II is touted to be its increased sharpness and reduction in vignetting at the periphery of the frame. These problems are both FX specific.
 
miurasv said:
Actually, I am wrong. Just had a look at Ken Rockwell's review and the new one is VR11.
Click to expand...

lol...oh Ken...

As for the lens, excellent lens. I'm loving mine. Especially with a teleconverter (1.7).
I would suggest buying it in person. You'll make a friend at the camera shop, have service easily accessible and in your own language, help your economy. And you'll also get to try the lens out on the spot. Would be a shame to get a 'lemon' in the mail.
 
Buy the lens from a reputable camera shop, preferably a UK Nikon Authorised dealer. I'm sure Digital Depot would do you a good deal. If a non authorised UK dealer is going to be cheaper then it won't be by much and you won't have the back up if something goes wrong which is worth a lot more than you'll save. Keep the receipts and original paperwork and a genuine UK supplied lens will be worth more when you sell it too. All imho of course.
 
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...

Well Pete, I just pick up a minty tropical grey (or white to you! :LOL:) 70-200 VR and I have to say if you do get one it's doubtful you'll be selling it on anytime soon after getting it - it is an awesome lens! :D
 
i love this lens

now there is a new one for fx bodies, i wont be changing as i dont have a d700 yet lol

only time will tell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top