• Welcome to Camera Craniums: The Photography Community for Enthusiasts.
 
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 62,411
  • Total Topics: 5,704
  • Online today: 136
  • Online ever: 856 (January 21, 2020, 09:07:00 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 113
  • Total: 113
parkcameras
Amazon Spring Deal: SanDi...🌸🌼 Get Ready to Blossom w...Marantz Professional MPM-...Google Pixel 7a and Pixel...JasmineSanDisk Ultra 64GB USB Fl...SanDisk 512GB Extreme PRO...GiaDo You Shoot Photos With ...Which eye do you use with...SanDisk 256GB Extreme PRO...Duracell Plus Alkaline 1....RØDE VideoMicro Compact O...I must be one of the rare...Learning ResourcesPhotography and Time of D...

Nikon 4/70-200 ED VR

Started by Sarasocke, January 30, 2013, 09:51:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sarasocke

Is anyone using one of these?

My two main lenses are a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-300 4.5-5.6, the latter with the first generation VR.
I've been lusting after the 70-200 2.8 for years, but, apart from the cost, the weight has put me off.

The new(ish) 70-200 F4 might be a compromise, about 1/3 cheaper and only half the weight.
The F4 has VR in the third generation, but would it be so much of an advantage for me? Would I notice a big enough difference between the F4 and my old 70-300mm to merit spending over 1000 euros?

Or do I go for the older 2.8 VR II ... I'm sure I would notice a difference there, but the extra weight ... and I would be losing 100mm.

Decisions decisions ...  :legit:
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

Oldboy

I love my 70-200mm F2.8 VR even though the seals aren't as good as they should be. Used with my D3 it has a great balance in my hands. One stop of difference between that and the new F4 might not seem much but in low light it makes a big difference. Not sure the new lens will be as good as the old 2.8 VR but the choice is yours. Go into a store and check both out then go home and think about it before making your choice.  :tup:

jinky

I went for the f4 16-35 when I really shopuld have saved more for the 14-24. Get the 70-200 f 2.8 and ignore the seeming benefits of the f4. If you cannot afford the Nikon I can vouch for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 - another heavy beast but probably my sharpest lens and sharper than my Nikon 85 1.8 at each possible aperture!!!

Sarasocke

Thanks for the input guys!

I considered the Sigma - it's certainly a chunk cheaper, half the price in fact, if only 100g lighter than the Nikon. Apart from my Tamron 90 macro, I've ended up replacing my Sigma/Tamron lenses with Nikon. I really don't know what to do.
I'm off to my favourite camera shop later this morning to get the donated Canon EF checked out before I put it up for sale. I'll see if they have either of the lenses in stock and ask their advice.
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

jinky

At some point I`ll switch my sigma for the Nikon 70-200 for the VR but needs to be a good price to tempt me as I am so happy with the Sigma and I got a free 2x converter with it when I bought it.

Sarasocke

I've  more or less decided on the 70-200 from Nikon. It seems to be THE lens if you take your  photography seriously :)

I'll have to see how I get on with the size and weight, before I start looking at converters though. Maybe 200mm will be enough for me.
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

Graham

  It's an absolute cracker of a lens, you'll get used to the weight, anything else is a compromise.  :tup:
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. 

My Gallery
My Flickr Pics

Sarasocke

Thanks Graham, that's the conclusion I've come to.

I've got the possiblity of a second hand VR1 for 1000€ against a new VR11 for 1830€. It's a heck of a difference in price - ist the VRII so much better? The VR1 was fully serviced at Nikon last November.
Considering I'm not sure if I can handle the weight, maybe I should go for it ...
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

Oldboy

Quote from: Sarasocke on February 02, 2013, 04:11:24 PM
Thanks Graham, that's the conclusion I've come to.

I've got the possiblity of a second hand VR1 for 1000€ against a new VR11 for 1830€. It's a heck of a difference in price - ist the VRII so much better? The VR1 was fully serviced at Nikon last November.
Considering I'm not sure if I can handle the weight, maybe I should go for it ...

Go for the VR 1 it's a bargain as secondhand here they are looking for £1,400 plus.  :tup:

Graham

 Listen to your uncle Oldboy. :tup:
I've got the VR1 and I don't really see how the VR2 would be so much better.
If the weight is a problem a monopod is the answer.
                  Graham.  :dance:
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. 

My Gallery
My Flickr Pics

Sarasocke

Already got a monopod, so I'm OK there.
Mind you, I can't see me in a pen with 10-15 dogs and a monopod  :P
I'll have to start training  :dance:

Just waiting for a reply now, so see if the lens is still for sale. I can even pick it up personally, the chap's in Frankfurt!
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

Sarasocke

OK, the lens was bought in 2007, so about 5 years old. It was serviced at Nikon last November when it was adjusted, cleaned and the VR replaced.

The only thing not included is the lense hood,  but the hood from my 24-70 should fit.

5 years seems a bit old. Hubby reckons if it's older than 3 years I should leave it.
The offer, with photos, is here http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1199165

Go for it or get a VRII? Sorry to be such a dither ... 1050€ is still a lot of cash.
The VR II from Amazon costs 1830€, but then that's new, with guarantee etc.
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

jinky

Don`t know if this is any good for you in Germany.http://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/nikon-70-200mm-af-s-nikkor-f28g-ed-vr-ii-lens-498-p.asp at 1669E

They do grey imports you need to be aware. I got my D7000 back up camera from here for way less than it cost elsewhere and it comes with a 5 year warranty through their own repair system in UK. Not sure what they say re: lenses but I know a few people who have bought here without problems.

I wouldn`t touch that 5 year old one at that price after such repairs - how did it happen? Was it dropped? Seems odd to replace a Vr system in a service.

Sarasocke

Thanks for the advice, Paul.
Carol aka Sarasocke 
My Gallery

Oldboy

Quote from: Sarasocke on February 04, 2013, 12:45:59 PM
OK, the lens was bought in 2007, so about 5 years old. It was serviced at Nikon last November when it was adjusted, cleaned and the VR replaced.

The only thing not included is the lense hood,  but the hood from my 24-70 should fit.

5 years seems a bit old. Hubby reckons if it's older than 3 years I should leave it.
The offer, with photos, is here http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1199165

Go for it or get a VRII? Sorry to be such a dither ... 1050€ is still a lot of cash.
The VR II from Amazon costs 1830€, but then that's new, with guarantee etc.

Quote from: jinky on February 04, 2013, 03:12:24 PM

I wouldn`t touch that 5 year old one at that price after such repairs - how did it happen? Was it dropped? Seems odd to replace a Vr system in a service.

If it's been serviced by Nikon then it would be like new. VR could have been replaced due to faulty motor which might have been caused by damp. It's the optics that cost the money not VR or the lens body.  :tup:

Camera Craniums is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Program. This affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on Amazon.