What lens for my D810, telezoom.

[ShunCheung]

<p>David, we are fine. Martin the OP is not very specific about a fixed budget, so I am covering a few options. To me, he needs a 70-200mm/f2.8 with VR because he covers indoor events. The question is which one. If he doesn't want to spend to get a new VR II, the alternatives are a used VR 1 or a Sigma or perhaps Tamron, etc.</p>

<p>Some people may want to get the latest and greatest VR II. I bought mine in October 2010 with a package discount with the D7000. Now 5+ years later, for a lens that Nikon updates so frequently, I just would like to point out that an updated E version can appear essentially any time, as Nikon has updated the 24-70mm/f2.8 to an E version with VR last year. Whoever is spending $2000 to buy a new lens should at least be aware of that potential possibility. To some, it can be really annoying that a shiny new lens they are paying a premium for suddenly becomes an "old version" in a couple of months after the purchase.</p>

<p>Otherwise, I have zero insider info on when the 70-200mm/f2.8 will be updated, or I wouldn't even be bringing that up.</p>

[Two23]

<p>For weddings, you DO want f2.8. The reasons are (1) a stop faster shutter speed can be important (2) f2.8 gives you better isolation from the background. I use the 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 for weddings on D800E and it works just fine.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Unless you really think you need the f2.8 the f4 zooms are so much easier to handle, cheaper, and it is only one stop. The f2.8 zooms are only really needed when you are shooting a lot of dance or sport in poor light. Classical/school concerts, for example, are just fine with an f4 as the VR will be your friend.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Thank you everyone, want to give an answers to all of you since you have been so kind to take the time and give me some good suggestions.<br>

So, what i have so far is a lot of good suggestions, but a lot of input both from this thread and forum but also from DPreview that has been quite contradictory hehe. What i mean buy that is for example that a lot of photographers has said for weddings and indoors only the VR2 version will suffice( more or less) while some have suggested it is a great lens for those occasions as well, since the softness in the corners on the VR! version wont effect you unless you shoot landscapes or such where you need the whole image sharp.<br>

What i have learned about the F4 listening to experiences from many different photographers , is that it is a great lens( no one has actually said that its not good), BUT it doesnt have that pro feel and it might let me down indoors( some thought) and maybe at weddings( while some has said its fine there as well due to the great VR.<br>

The older 80-200 lenses are great from what i have heard and great build quality etc, but the newer lenses would be better choices for my D810 when it comes to faster AF etc. Also i havent found any of those used thus far except one that was the non Af-s version so not as good.<br>

I had one offer of a 70-200 VR1 for around 850 EU and that guy is giving me answer ina few days since another guy was interested there as well.<br>

Also had some offers about the VR2 for 1300 EU.<br>

To be honest im leaning towards the 2,8 VR1 as of now. And that is cause im afraid i will think the F4 one is going to let me down with its "feeling" ( build quality, character etc). i remember buying and looking for wideangles in past and was let down buy most of the consumer lenses until i found the 24 G 1,4 and the Zeiss 21 distagon. But i have not tried it so it is only speculation from me. The VR2 would be the best of course, but i bought tons of expensive stuff for my hobby/business this year and if i CAN save a little cash but still get something i will be satisfied with, that is what im going for. But not 100% sure yet what will satisfy me in the end hehe.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For indoors, the main advantage is that f2.8 will give you faster and more accurate AF than f4, regardless of whether you actually shoot at f2.8, f4, or f5.6. It doesn't mean f4 is totally unusable, but f2.8 has a clear advantage.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Thanks Shun, got it :)</p>

[solamnus]

<p>I actually found a used 8-200 AF-D in great condition now near where i live for 500 EU. Tempting...<br>

Not sure if i should go with that or the 70-200 VR1...thats a little more expensive of course.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Shun, and others that used the F4 lens. How good is it?? is it a great lens? i mean close or as good a quality when it comes to bokeh and character as the other lenses? Or do you "feel" that its a lesser lens when you use it? I think that is almost more important for me...then only get sharp pictures tbh. I do not want a lens that "feels" cheap if you know what i mean. I know its a cheaper lens...still what is your opinions?<br>

Also, a great plus seems to be the weight there...the other pro lenses seems very big...i tend to leave even the 24-70 home at times and rather get a prime. So that IS something im considering as well. But if the quality character is so much compromised i would not want the F4 even if its cheaper/less weight...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-70-200-f4-ed-vr-af-s-zoom-lens-review</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Great review cheers:) I think i will have to really decide what would be my best use for the lens i buy. I think that is where im stuck currently. I think id be most happy with the VR2 lens, but that will be at that huge cost. If i know any of the other lenses would do what i wanted( a little bit of everything, from events indoors/outdoors maybe portraits and landscapes) then id rather get that...so if i get a cheaper lens i just have to realize it might just do parts of what i would like it to do.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Martin, it doesn't sound like you need a 70-200 zoom immediately. Why don't you forget about this for a week or two (or maybe longer). Perhaps after a little while, you'll have a better idea of what you need, or don't need.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>yeh i do not know:) Well i do know i need something down the line since when i have shot stuff lately indoors the 180 has not been sufficient and not as versatile for my needs there. Hence i started looking around.<br>

Still you are right in that im still a bit unsure of what i exactly want from the lens. So i will think it through again. I actually got another offer for a tropical grey 70-200 VR1 version close to me for around 900 EU. But i will sleep over this and might test it out this weekend and see how i feel after.<br>

Thank you so much for the input, its been great:)</p>

 

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, and others that used the F4 lens. How good is it?? is it a great lens?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've played around with one. It is a great lens, and something to consider for travel and general photography. No way I'd buy one for wedding use though. For that you really need f2.8; partly for the extra stop of speed, partly for the ability to separate a bride & groom from busy backgrounds. So, great choice for general photography, if you aren't doing weddings with it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[solamnus]

<p>And have you any experience with the VR1 version on a FF body in those situations?:)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Martin, please take a look at this thread from 2008: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl<br>

Keep in mind that Nikon introduced the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II in 2009. Therefore, in 2008, the only 70-200 available was the VR version 1. The f4 version was introduced much later.</p>

<p>However, I am afraid that you are over-thinking. It may help to take your mind off this topic for a couple of weeks.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Martin--</p>

<p>I routinely use the 70-200mm v2.8 VR1 on my D800E for weddings. It's fine. I can afford ANY lens I want. The VR1 performs very well. Yes, a little vignetting at f2.8 when the backgrounds are light colored, but so what. Doesn't matter for wedding or portrait photography. I agree you are making this harder than it really is.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Thank you Shun and Kent again. Yes i know i am overthinking, i always do this before ending up with a lens. Still, most of the time i am very satisfied with the lens i get because i read so much and weight the pros and cons alot before getting it. In this case im sure all of these lenses are great lenses in their way, and especially the VR2 is the better choice even if the cost is high.<br>

But i know i would be happy with all of them, the VR1 would be fine im almost sure of, since i do not care that much about the soft corners. My problem lies in that i have to consider the price a bit at this moment, or i would already have got the VR2.<br>

So im trying to figure out if i can live with the "shortcomings" of those other two, which the more i read the more i believe i could. The F4 im trying to figure out if i can compensate with one of the great primes i have.<br>

So now im mulling my options over to decide. Im actually going into town today to test the F4 and the VR2 just to see...i will let you guys know if i decided on one.<br>

Thanks! /Martin.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Ok, so some feedback on my choice now. First of all thank you for all your advice and patience with me ;)<br>

I went in to town today and straight for the store. i tried the F4 and the VR2 there. i was not able to try the VR1 version out today unfortunately. But after testing the other two and felt both were great lenses in their own way, i took a coffee break and mulled it over a few hours, came back and knew i wanted the VR2, mostly because of the faster AF and the quality feel of the lens. it just felt better though heavier all around. Even so the F4 was great.<br>

Im already crying mentally because of all the money, but hopefully i will feel better after shooting a few frames hehe;)<br>

Cheers guys, Martin.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Have shot a few weeks now with this lens, and although it is indeed heavy, i love the feeling of it. Such a versatile lens. Thanks again for your suggestions!<br>

/Martin.</p>