1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

70-200 Vr Thinking About Selling, Need Help

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by pr549f2678, Sep 6, 2008.

  1. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    I have the 70-200VR and have been thinking about selling
    it for I don't think I have used it but 4-5 times in the 1 1/2 yrs I've had it.
    I'm thinking about replacing it with the 180 f/2.8.
    Do you think I would be making a mistake by doing this, I know that I'm the
    one to make the final decision but looking for opions for this forum has really
    helped me before.

  2. You're headed down the same path that I took, Phil. I loved my 80-200/2.8, but I found I much prefer the 85/1.4 + 180/2.8 combo. Like your 70-200, it gathered dust after I bought the 180. So I sold it and added the 70-300VR, which I see you already own.

    Don't let Group Think influence you, and don't be overly concerned about making a mistake. You've hardly used the 70-200, so it's hard to imagine you'd miss it. It may be legendary glass, but in your case, it hasn't paid its way. Trade it in for something you'll enjoy using and don't look back.
  3. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    Thanks Frank for your post, I noticed there are a couple of different
    180's out there, which one is the better one?

  4. There are 3 auto-focus versions. All of them use the same (wonderful) optical formula. The earlierst version was introduced in 1986 and discontinued in 1987. It wasn't popular due to the smooth finish of the body and an undersized focus ring. Both version 2 and 3 have the nice crinkle finish and a wider focus ring. Version 2's lifespan was between 1987 and 1995. The current AF D version has been in production since December 1994, and can often be found for around $500-$550, about $100 more than version 2. I have a version 2, but if I were buying today, I'd get a version 3, just for the age factor.
  5. It's weird how some people don't use lenses. The 70-200 VR is my most used lens! I say if you don't use it, get something you will use. What makes you think you'll use the 180 2.8 if you're not using the 70-200?
  6. +1 Jonathan F/2. Great question. If the lens is collecting dust then by all means replace, but replace it something you intend to use.

    Also ask yourself what focal lengths have you used the 70-200VR at and will your 70-300VR be sufficient for those purposes.

    Good luck with your decision.
  7. Since the 70-300 covers all of the range of the 70-200, I think the issue is what apertures he used the 70-200 at. But while the 70-300 is a terrific lens for sports, wildlife, or the zoo, it doesn't challenge the 70-200 or the 180 in terms of image quality.

    The 70-200 is awesome, but I can't think of a lens I'd rather use for candids than the 180/2.8. It's small and unobtrusive, and it performs well wide open. Jmho.

    Nikon D200 1/250s f/2.8 at 180.0mm iso140
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  8. I agree that if the 70-200VR isn't getting much use, sell it.

    However, I have to ask -- is the 180/2.8 going to be used as well? Only you can answer that based on how you shoot. E.g. are you using the 70-300VR when you need reach, and finding it satisfactory?
  9. FM Bob

    FM Bob

    Sep 19, 2007
    Binghamton, NY
    I had the marvelous 70-200VR, but it just did not get used much at all. Not that I didn't like it, I did, and I did tote it around some, but most of the time ... the majority of time ... it was not being used. For me, it was too much money invested in a beautiful piece of equipment that was simply not being used. I sold mine ... of course I had 2nd thoughts about selling it, but I did and in it's place I now use, much more frequently, the 70-300VR ... and I am not sorry I did what I did. I am very happy with what I get out of the 70-300VR. I'm also happy knowing that the gal who bought it from me IS using the lens, and is taking good care of it. I speak only for myself ... you need to think about what you need and want and not be swayed by me or anyone else. You will end up doing what is best for YOU. Good luck.
  10. The math is easy

    The math is easy - sell it you are not using it.

    Get something you will use more and/or complement what you already have the 180/2.8 would make a perfect complement to your 70-300/VR.
  11. That's because you don't mind being noticed... you love it - lol. And after shooting with the 200VR and 200-400/4, the 70-200 must feel as light as a feather.
  12. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    Let me see if I can answer some of these questions:

    Jonathan,Scorpiol,Big Daddy,
    You all have a good point about the use of the 180 vs 200, first the 200
    is a lot bigger and heavier ( 3'' longer and 3.2 lbs heavier ) than the 180,
    plus I think it is intimidating when you take it out vs the 180.
    I got the 70-300vr for the size and for mostly outdoor shots, I like fast lens
    for indoor so that's why the 180 so I believe I would use it more.
    Frank is right about the apertures for as you see by my avatar, I like fast

    I hope all this make sense and thank you all for your imput.

  13. Another option to consider if you're looking for a smaller/lighter alternative to the 70-200 VR is a Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX HSM. I sold my 70-200 VR because I was much more often hitting a shutter-speed wall due to action, not hand-shake. I picked up the 70-200/2.8 EX HSM for $400 and sold the 70-200 VR for $1500. The Sigma balances better, is much easier to carry, probably 95% as sharp, and about the same length hood-on as the 70-200VR was hood-off. Since it was action determining my shutter-speeds and not hand-shake, I've not once regretted the decision... and the profit paid for Christmas the year-before-last. If it's size and cost you're looking to minimize, the 70-200/2.8 offers most of the convenience and performance at a fraction of both size/cost. If it's absolute image quality you're looking to keep and cost you're looking to minimize, you may be on the right path with the 180/2.8.
  14. That's funny, because the 70-200 does feel light as a feather compared to my big telephotos! I love big lens! There's no better feeling than having the biggest lens in the group! :tongue:
  15. It makes sense to me if you're not using the 70-200 VR. Have you considered the Sigma 50-150 instead of the Nikkor 180? Looking at your lens collection, the 50-150 would fit in quite nicely...


  16. +1 on this suggestion. The 50-150 II is every bit as sharp as the 70-200 from Nikon if you get a good copy (I order from Amazon and don't hesitate to return until I get a good one). Smaller than the 180, still 2.8, zoom is convenient - all around great choice.

    Of course I love the 180 2.8 so you can't go wrong either way.

  17. I just wonder why, if you're not using the 70-200, would you think you'd use the 180? You can certainly shoot the 70-200 at 180mm. What focal length do you shoot at? Seems as though you'd be selling a lens you don't shoot with, to buy another lens you won't shoot with.
  18. pr549f2678


    Jun 26, 2007
    central Fl
    Thanks for the reply, see my post #12, I tried to explain, just
    hope it makes sense.

  19. Phil, yeah I guess it does.
  20. I hate to say I am thinking along the same lines. I use the 70-200vr very little- I already have the 180/2.8 and usually grab it instead. The 70-200 has not seen daylight in months.

    And also the 180 does not vignette wide open on FX either.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.