70-200VR, 18-200VR or 70-300VR?

Pesto126 · May 23, 2007

Hi everyone.. wondering what to do.. I recently purchased a 70-200VR. Haven't been using it much but been hearing and seeing now how much everyone seems to love the 18-200 and 70-300VR's.. for about 3/4 of the price, I could have one of these so I'm wondering what you would do? Keep the 70-200 and be happy you have a great lens.. or just buy one of the others?

I find the 70-200 to be a solid but heavy lens especially on my D50. Of course, I hooked it up to play and my D50 went south and is now at Nikon for service... so I haven't really used the 70-200 yet.

My main photography is usually at the long end of things since I am a bird watcher and photographer. Txh for the help!

flygirl1 · May 23, 2007

Well, I can only show you a few of my pics with the 70-300VR. I love the lens and could walk around with it all day attached to my D200.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

hope this helps
Nancy

R Bond · May 23, 2007

Andy

How about ading a 1.4 or 1.7 TC to the 70-200 VR?

Nancy

Nice shots, makes me want the 70-300 VR. I am presently without a lense longer than 105mm. The Tax check should be here soon.

flygirl1 · May 23, 2007

Thanks RB. I was going to recommend that, the TC's that is, but really with that combination I think a monopod would be prudent or really, really practice technique even with VR, plus you loose the stops and the advantage of 2.8.

Cheers
Nancy

Gale · May 23, 2007

Welllllllllllllllllllllllll
That 70-200 VR 2.8 is a very very excellent lens
You could use with the tc's

But then you can use the kenko 1.4 tc with the other two as well.

80-400 VR with a kenko 1.4 tc gives you 600
Check my gallery most of it is shot that way

So you really need to be sure you know what you want to shoot and go with what you think is best.

Pesto126 · May 23, 2007

Yeah.. sounds like its a matter of what you are shooting that day. I think I'll hold the 70-200 a bit longer and play with it a bit - have to wait until my camera gets back in action of course.

Can I assume that my Tamron TC's will not work well with the Nikon? I'd hate to have to spend another 300 on a 1.4...

flygirl1 · May 24, 2007

Pesto126 said:
Yeah.. sounds like its a matter of what you are shooting that day. I think I'll hold the 70-200 a bit longer and play with it a bit - have to wait until my camera gets back in action of course.

Can I assume that my Tamron TC's will not work well with the Nikon? I'd hate to have to spend another 300 on a 1.4...

The Tamron TC's should work fine. They just will not show up on your EXIF or your aperture readings in the camera. For example, if in your viewfinder it says f5.6 and you have the 1.4 on, you would really be shooting at f8. The metering works fine, but it is just the reading in the viewfinder.

Nancy

bozola · May 24, 2007

My recommendations..... are in my signature....

Muonic · May 24, 2007

flygirl1 said:
They just will not show up on your EXIF or your aperture readings in the camera. For example, if in your viewfinder it says f5.6 and you have the 1.4 on, you would really be shooting at f8. The metering works fine, but it is just the reading in the viewfinder.

Nancy

Strangly enough, it actually depends which lens you use it with. With my 80-200, the EXIF does not show up. But with the 70-200, it does. So when I use the Tamron 1.4 SP AF with my 70-200, it will show the max aperture at f4.0, and the max length of 280mm. This holds true with both my D70s, and my D2x.

Vienna Pics · May 24, 2007

I have all three that you mentioned - the 70-200vr will be the last one sold, if I ever sold them. If you are looking at weight, the 70-200 is the heaviest. If you are looking at quality, the 70-200 is the best.

Bill Taylor · May 24, 2007

If you're a bird photographer , I would keep the 70-200VR . Maybe pick up a TC for it . I got the 18-200 and 70-300VR , and like them both , but I don't shoot birds.

watsonD50 · May 24, 2007

I would spend more time with 70-200 VR and see how things pan out, it's an exceptional lens and the market always favors this lens so there will be little loss if you wait and sell it later on. You might find that you grow to like the 70-200 more and more overtime and you might get used to the weight, if not you have other options in Nikon's line that are excellant as well.

Bigmuddy · May 24, 2007

Interesting post since I just posted a book on the sports category asking the same question..., how to spend my money...lol. One day its this, then no its this.., then back to this.
I think I should of taken up horseshoes or darts. Love your Gallery by the way Gail.

Gale · May 24, 2007

Thank You Brian
Very much appreciated the kind comment

Bill · May 24, 2007

My recommendations are, 70-200mm VR with a tc-17E. Use the lens only or with the TC. I like the f2.8 lens speed.

FullFrame · May 24, 2007

Interesting post and I'm surprised that no one as really brought up the fact that you're not really comparing apples to apples when you compare the 70-200 with the other two you mentioned. About the only thing that they all have in common is the VR in their names. The 70-200VR is a pro lens that is considered by many to be one of Nikon's 3 Kings (the other being the 28-70 f/2.8 and (I believe) the 17-35 f/2.8). The 70-200 is indeed heavier than the others, but it's also the only one of the 3 that you listed that is capable of opening up to f/2.8, and this aperture will stay constant through all focal lengths. Plus, I don't think that the other two can hold a candle to the 70-200 when it comes to bokeh. Not saying that the consumer grade lenses are incapable of taking great shots because they certainly can. I just don't see either of them producing images that are quite the quality of the 70-200.

I'm more of a sports shooter and I could not imagine steppping onto the field (or track) with anything other than the 70-200. It's that good. Fast focus and weather sealing are a must in the environments that I shoot in. Here's a recent shot from a motocross event that was shot with my D200 and the 70-200.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Anyway, that's my .02 cents on the subject.

flygirl1 · May 24, 2007

xmenporsche said:
Interesting post and I'm surprised that no one as really brought up the fact that you're not really comparing apples to apples when you compare the 70-200 with the other two you mentioned. About the only thing that they all have in common is the VR in their names. The 70-200VR is a pro lens that is considered by many to be one of Nikon's 3 Kings (the other being the 28-70 f/2.8 and (I believe) the 17-35 f/2.8). The 70-200 is indeed heavier than the others, but it's also the only one of the 3 that you listed that is capable of opening up to f/2.8, and this aperture will stay constant through all focal lengths. Plus, I don't think that the other two can hold a candle to the 70-200 when it comes to bokeh. Not saying that the consumer grade lenses are incapable of taking great shots because they certainly can. I just don't see either of them producing images that are quite the quality of the 70-200.

I'm more of a sports shooter and I could not imagine steppping onto the field (or track) with anything other than the 70-200. It's that good. Fast focus
and weather sealing are a must in the environments that I shoot in. Here's a recent shot from a motocross event that was shot with my D200 and the 70-200.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Anyway, that's my .02 cents on the subject.

It is a fine lens, the 70-200VR, BUT VERY expensive. For many people really out of their reach. And, under the same lighting conditions I feel the 70-300VR would give the same results as the 70-200VR, so is a good alternative for those who cannot afford the other. Plus for birding I would really recommend the 300 f4 with TC's instead, but that one was not mentioned. Those are my .02 :wink:

Cheers
Nancy

FullFrame · May 24, 2007

flygirl1 said:
It is a fine lens, the 70-200VR, BUT VERY expensive. For many people really out of their reach. And, under the same lighting conditions I feel the 70-300VR would give the same results as the 70-200VR, so is a good alternative for those who cannot afford the other. Plus for birding I would really recommend the 300 f4 with TC's instead, but that one was not mentioned. Those are my .02 :wink:

Cheers
Nancy

Sorry.... maybe I misread the OP. I thought that the person that started the thread already had the 70-200VR so the purchase had already been made. I also feel that the 5 ED elements in the 70-200 give it an advantage with respect to chromatic aberrations at maximum aperture over the 2 ED elements in the 70-300.

But, hey... it's all good. It's Nikon.

revdhd · May 24, 2007

70-200vr + 1.7tc

Hi, Andy,

I happen to be another knucklehead who sprung for the 70-200, and I have to tell you....... it's fantastic! And it's versatile.

Here's a shot taken on a bright, sunny day, no teleconverter.
My grandson playing lacrosse... D200, 70-200VR @ 200mm, 1/1000 second at f/6.3, ISO 320

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And here are two closeups with a teleconverter...
Song Sparrow at the feeder... D200, 70-200VR + Nikon TC17e teleconverter @ 340mm, 1/500 second at f/6.3, ISO 400

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Goldfinches... D200, 70-200VR + Nikon TC17e teleconverter @ 320mm, 1/500 second at f/5.6, ISO 400

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I'm hardly a great photographer, but this lens makes me look awfully good. It really delivers. Don't sell it! I don't think you'll find another zoom in this range that can produce such outstanding images in such a variety of circumstances.

JMHO.

God bless.
Doug