70-200 VR question

[robbie_caswell]

My style has evolved into bracketed flash with a D200/17-55 combo for 90% on

my work.

 

I plan to add another D200 and have been contemplating a 70-200VR. I find my

135mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 do nicely, but the versatility of the zoom over a

fixed 135mm f/2 would be nice in some situations.

 

So the question is... is it a good tandom with the 17-55 and is it functional

bouncing flash in a church or tighter situaions like receptions (cake cutting,

dance floor etc).

 

I could also use another fast 17-55 or 17-35 zoom for my wife and backing up

formals etc...

[ned1]

If you can afford it, the 70-200 VR is an amazing lens. Sharp even wide open. Only defect is that it is SO heavy. I only use it on a tripod these days, which negates the need for VR. Combine it with a monopod, however, and you've got a pretty flexible lens.

 

I've used bounce flash with it, but it works best if you are in a small church. An example:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5060192

 

It makes a great combo with the 17-55. If you are muscular you could carry two cameras, one with the VR and the other with the 17-55. Then you'll be covered for all situations. Alas, that muscular I am not.

 

So that's it. This is the perfect lens accept for it's weight and the torque that comes with its enourmous length.

[james hoang]

My very first post!

 

I've worked a couple of weddings using these 2 lens combo on 2 camera bodies and it worked fairly well. The 70-200mm is a great lens. Sharp, beautiful IQ and the reach is great for portrait and candids. BUT, it is a big and heavy lens. You'll always notice its there and always tend to be careful trying not to hit something and someone with it. With that said, the 17-55mm still got used for about 85% of my shots. I originally got the 70-200mm for the VR and inside church shots (low light) but f2.8 is still f2.8 and in many situations, even this great lens w/ VR couldn't give me the stops I needed. So I often reverted to my 50mm f/1.4 for these situations. Thats my take on the 70-200mm VR.

 

Now to add an option to your list of lens to get. I have since got the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 lens and it is beautiful. Not AF-S so focusing is slow and shorter range but the images I get from it are absolutely incredible (magical to be more precise) and well worth the trade-off. It's also smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm which is a real plus when working an 8 hour event and having 2 cameras hanging from your neck. The 17-55mm and 85mm is now my two lens combo. The 17-55mm is still used for most of everything (cake cutting, dance floor etc) but the 85mm is excellent for portraits and candid work.

 

I have sold my 70-200mm and currently looking for the 80-200mm to keep on the side for those rare occassions where a longer lens is needed.

 

Hope this helps you in making your decision.

[shelly m.]

I, too, am using the 17-55 and an 85 (f/1.8) for 99% of my wedding work. I would love to have the 85 f/1.4 but couldn't justify the cash outlay with the few weddings I'm doing. I have the 80-200 f/2.8, and it is a great lens, but too heavy to carry around all day and longer than what I need now that I'm using a DSLR with 1.6 crop factor.

 

If I had the cash to spend again, I would have purchased the 85 1.4 rather than the 80-200.

 

Have fun trying to decide how to spend the $$. :-)

 

Shelly in SE Indiana

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

I wouldn't be sitting here today if it wasn't for my 70-200.

 

Gorgeous images, fast focus, but yes, heavy!

 

On 1 shoulder I have a 24-70 sigma or other wide angle mounted on my D200 with an SB-800 and remote flash trigger.

 

On the other shoulder I have my 70-200 2.8 VR on a D200 with NO SB-800 but I do have the remote flash trigger. (On camera flash is usually pretty worthless at the distances I shoot from using diffusion and bounce).

 

Here is an example:

http://aaronleephoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1986201/15/102424876

[fotografz]

Nice stuff with that lens guys.

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

Thanks, Mark!

 

That means a lot!

 

Aaron

[rich_taylor____mequon__wi]

You will LOVE the 70-200. It's invaluable for the ceremony and for capturing close-up, narrow DOF moments at other times. You will not regret the investment. It's the perfect complement to your 17-55. IMO, too many shooters rely upon the mid-range (28-70) for a disproportionate amount of shots. A little heavy? Yeah, but so what? It's not a bowling ball. It's very workable.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I agree with Rich that the combo of th 17-55 and 70-200 is virtually ideal. I had the 135 f2 but had problems with motion blur in low light situations. The VR solved that problem.