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

Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
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.

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


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


Thanks for looking.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
272
Location
Athens, Greece
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.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
722
Location
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
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
667
Location
River Forest, Illinois
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.
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
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?
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
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.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,814
Location
Sanford, FL
Real Name
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.
 
M

Michael Mohrmann

Guest
This is why I choose to have the 80-200 (lighter and smaller than 70-200 VR) ...
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").
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Messages
502
Location
Georgia via Long Island, NY
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 :)
 
C

Chris Pierce

Guest
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.

The real question is, where are the bikini shots?
 
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
69
Location
So Cal
Mine stays at home a lot as well. But when I take it out to play, look out!!

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


HHARRIS
:)
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
Billy,

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
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.
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,633
Location
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.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
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.
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.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
Hi Brian,

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?
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.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
498
Location
riyadh
Bill,

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.
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! )

Regards.
 
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
856
Location
Charlottesville, VA / Palo Alto, CA
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.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom