Just handled 70-200 VR

[errolyoung]

I just handled a Nikon 70-200 VR and was very impressed by it. The owner knew

nothing about it or photography for that matter but he paid $2,000 CND for it.

 

My first impression was that it was a sturdy beast, heavy and long. Real metal.

I put it on my D70 and shot some fast portraits.

 

I usually shoot with a 18-70 kit which does a very good job. But this thing

produced great looking files. I wonder if it is the VR or is there something

special about expensive glass.

 

I will not be going out to buy it since I don't not shoot in that range enough.

 

This starts me wondering about the 17-35.

 

Errol

[southjerseyphotos]

Great lens I love mine. Heavy, great low light $1500.00 in states

[tonybeach]

It's the combination of ED elements and the optical formula that makes the lens special. What makes it stand out the most from its 80-200/2.8 predecessor (aside from the VR) is the bokeh, which is simply amazing; ironically, the VR actually disturbs the bokeh and should be turned off for the absolute best IQ.

[alex_lofquist]

Almost all zoom lenses of this range are of excellent quality. I had a Sigma 70-210 f/3.5-f/4.5 (before I got my VR Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8), and it provided fine images. The basic optical design has matured to the point that improvements have mostly minor significance.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I love my 70-200VR. Amazing lens & quality. I also love my 17-55 DX lens, though right now I use it very little. I'm really thinking of buying the 28-70 f/2.8 to ensure having a great walk about lens in the group. I have the 24-120 VR, but it is slightly soft.... The 28-70 would be great when I'd normally use the 24-120 since I don't use it due to softness.....

 

What to do what to do.....

 

Can't live without my 70-200 VR though. But on my D200 - would I miss the tiny gap is the question....

 

Lil