I flew a mission today in Iraq, yeah that one, and we had the military "Combat camera" guys with us both video and still photographers. Well the camera the guy was using was a Nikon D3. What a beautiful machine. He also had a 70-200 2.8. I told him I was interested in that lens and he got it out and put it on the D3. OH MY GOSH what a lens!!!! I was not thinking I could spend the money for it but I think I may have to just save for it. It is beyond incredible! I was amazed.
Nikon 70-200 2.8
- Thread starter goz63
- Start date
Wow, $1000?!? I would grab it! It was like having driven the family minivan and then getting into a Farari. I should have never picked up that camera LOL. Now I have something to save for. I love my D90 and will not trade that but that lens will be mine one day, oh yes it will be mine ROFLMAO
Vermontster
New member
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
Mark, I know you have a 300mm. Question is would you put that 2.8 - 200mm on your D90 over your 300mm and give up the extra 100mm?
I'm already shopping for next year's upgrades and I'm thinking about fast glass, I have 35mm 1.8, so the next move would be some kind of zoom.
Rick
I'm already shopping for next year's upgrades and I'm thinking about fast glass, I have 35mm 1.8, so the next move would be some kind of zoom.
Rick
Rick,
I would use them for different things. We have horses and my wife shows them. I want the 200 for those shows and for sports etc. I love my 300 it just needs light like all the sub $5k 300mm lenses do. The 70-300 VR has the same aperture range as the 55-300 does. I want the 2.8 for lower light and indoor arena type stuff. I have the 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 to fill the wider angle low light area.
I would use them for different things. We have horses and my wife shows them. I want the 200 for those shows and for sports etc. I love my 300 it just needs light like all the sub $5k 300mm lenses do. The 70-300 VR has the same aperture range as the 55-300 does. I want the 2.8 for lower light and indoor arena type stuff. I have the 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 to fill the wider angle low light area.
Rick, just looked at a 17-24mm 2.8 that Nikon has as well. They have a set of three pro lenses that are awesome. The 17-24, 24-70 and then 70-200mm, all 2.8. With these you cover the whole gambit. You also are out about $6-7K LOL. Would love that set up though along with a D3 if Santa really cared about me 
For me though the 70-200 will do most of what I want with the afore mentioned two primes. This is after all a hobby for me, at least I think it is. I just have to keep the NAS at bay.
For me though the 70-200 will do most of what I want with the afore mentioned two primes. This is after all a hobby for me, at least I think it is. I just have to keep the NAS at bay.
Rick, just looked at a 17-24mm 2.8 that Nikon has as well. They have a set of three pro lenses that are awesome. The 17-24, 24-70 and then 70-200mm, all 2.8. With these you cover the whole gambit. You also are out about $6-7K LOL. Would love that set up though along with a D3 if Santa really cared about me
For me though the 70-200 will do most of what I want with the afore mentioned two primes. This is after all a hobby for me, at least I think it is. I just have to keep the NAS at bay.
Mark - i think you refer to the 14-24 F2.8 and not a 17-24. Nikon does not have that focal range in their lens line up.
Hey, has anyone had any experience with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OSII? I was at the local camera shop and talked with the guy. He has the Sigma for $1399 vs the Nikon $2499. He also said that Nikon is suing Sigma for patent infringement because Sigma is producing lenses so close to Nikon quality. Might look at the Sigma version for half the price for new.
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Not to rain on anybody's parade, but I've had a Nikon 70 - 200mm f/2.8 VR lens for several years now and I am not too happy with it right now. This is my main high school and college football games lens and lately I've noticed that when used wide open (necessary for night games) my shots are not as sharp as they should be. I've tried fine tuning the autofocus on my D300, but that didn't make much difference.
Just this morning I decided to do a lens sharpness test comparing this lens to my two other long lenses. A manual focus Nikon 300mm f/4.5 EDIF lens and a manual focus Tamron 400mm f/4 LDIF lens. The 300mm has a reputation for being a very sharp lens as well.
Much to my surprise, the Tamron lens turned out to be the sharpest of the three. The 300mm came in second leaving the 70 - 200mm in last place. I am attaching a photo showing the results here.
While I did enlarge the first two images so that they would be the same size as the third one in this photo (for easier comparison), that is not why the first two are not as sharp as the third one. I enlarged the third image 2x as well just to see what it would look like and it was still the sharpest of the three by far.
Any comments?
Just this morning I decided to do a lens sharpness test comparing this lens to my two other long lenses. A manual focus Nikon 300mm f/4.5 EDIF lens and a manual focus Tamron 400mm f/4 LDIF lens. The 300mm has a reputation for being a very sharp lens as well.
Much to my surprise, the Tamron lens turned out to be the sharpest of the three. The 300mm came in second leaving the 70 - 200mm in last place. I am attaching a photo showing the results here.
While I did enlarge the first two images so that they would be the same size as the third one in this photo (for easier comparison), that is not why the first two are not as sharp as the third one. I enlarged the third image 2x as well just to see what it would look like and it was still the sharpest of the three by far.
Any comments?
Thanks Ranie.
Thanks Rick.