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!

Nikkor 70-200/2.8 vr can't do the job..

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by tasnim_fahim, Jun 14, 2007.

  1. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006
    because it mostly stays at home..for me to lug it around.

    The 70-300 vr to my rescue and I honestly don't miss the 'legendary'
    lens at all. for me legends seem to be just that..removed from reality and something far away.



    Thanks for looking.
  2. The legendary 70-200 VR is not for me either. :Sad:
    Too big and too heavy for my trekkings.
    Top of the top IQ though, noone can deny this.
  3. Well, sacrifaces has to be made somewhere :) 
  4. Billy Ng

    Billy Ng

    Jan 22, 2007
    Hartsdale, NY
    Okay .. I'll play devil's advocate. While the first image is stunning, the second one is definitely in need of the 70-200. Despite your aggressive attempts at sharpening, that photo is severely motion blurred and on the long end, the 70-200 would have gotten 4 TIMES the shutter speed of the 70-300 which should have been more than adequate to freeze that boat.

    My $0.02
  5. IMO, both lenses have their use. The 70-300VR is a nice, lightweight lens. If you have enough light, you're all set with this lens. But it's the two stops of light that you get with f/2.8 that makes the 70-200VR a must have, at least for me.
  6. No argument that the 70-200 VR is a big, heavy lens that is a pain to carry around, but I agree that #2 is so blurry as to be pointless. I'm surprised that you posted it as an example, to be honest. One might even be tempted to say that it serves precisely as the counterexample to your comments?
  7. Dave


    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    This is why I choose to have the 80-200 (lighter and smaller than 70-200 VR) and the 70-300 VR. PLus, I have the 180 f/2.8 if I really want to go light and still get good IQ.
  8. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    To each his own. I hefted up the 70-200 VR for a bikini contest this Saturday, and so did the two photographers next to me. After 37 girls paraded by on their first pass, we were all ready to put that heavy thing down. Then we were quite dismayed when they only trimmed down to 20 girls for the next round.

    It's definitely a workout to spend three or four hours hoisting it up for continuous shots, but it was so worth it. The contest started as the sun was going down and into the darkness. When I got the images home, I started to go through my usual process of slight sharpening and color saturation.

    Feh. Didn't need to. I love this lens.
  9. The weight difference between the two isn't that much (3.2 lbs for the 70-200VR, 2.9 lbs for the 80-200). If you are shooting handheld and remove the tripod collar from the 70-200VR, it weighs 3.0 lbs.

    The 70-200VR is longer (8.5" vs 7.4") and both have the same width (3.4").
  10. We all love great glass, but at the end of the day...its all about composition and technique (in that order). People who look at my work NEVER ask what lens I used (unless they are photographers), and often they love images that I think are technically flawed. A great guitarist will make great sounds come out a ratty garage sale guitar...some even prefer them :) 
  11. Chris Pierce

    Chris Pierce Guest

    The real question is, where are the bikini shots?


    May 1, 2007
    So Cal
    Mine stays at home a lot as well. But when I take it out to play, look out!!

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

  13. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    YEs. :biggrin:
  14. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006

    A nice person like you could be an advocate, period. Agreed, the second one
    is very blurry, agreed i applied sharpening..I actually was not trying to get
    a sharp picture. maybe I failed here.

    But the 70-300 VR in good light is sharp..at least my version and legends or
    no it does not help me if it stays at home.

    Thanks for looking and God Bless.
  15. eng45ine


    May 11, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    Wow, then I guess you guys won't consider handholding the 300mm f/2.8, I do that all the time and will be doing it today at Wrigley Field. I can agree that toting a big lens gets tiresome though, but just one of the sacrifices for getting good shots.
  16. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006
    No arguing the speed of the 70-200 vr. I do however question that it is
    the answer to my dreams and something I should experience to have lived.

    For me it is too heavy and in most instances ( bar specific low light shooting )
    the 70-300 vr is more suitable.

    Enjoy whatever suits you in good spirits.
  17. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006
    Hi Brian,

    Glad to hear from you. I have posted worse, to be honest. Honestly this
    one was supposed to be blurred and not sharp. I shall keep on trying
    to post some ' acceptable ' blurred pics. I will get it eventually. No?

    Best Regards.
  18. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006
    No, it is not for sale. I have to show people I am a professional!!

    Impresses them a lot, what with me being not to tall.

  19. tasnim_fahim


    Oct 2, 2006

    I would heave it to if that was what I was looking at at the other end.

    Let's see some shots from that shoot ( no blurry ones please! )

  20. If your point is that other lenses can sometimes do a great job for less weight and bulk, that's definitely the case:

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

    This is from the 70-300 on a D100. I can certainly attest that it weighs a LOT less than a D2 + 80-200/f2.8 AFS - probably less than half as much, in fact. (That was on the other shoulder.)

    Edit: that's the 70-300 ED AF, by the way, not the 70-300 AFS VR, which I presume would have been even better.
  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.