Looking to purchase a Nikon 70-200 lens

[alma_jimenez]

<p>I have a D5300 camera and have been wanting to buy a 70-200 lens. Someone is selling a Nikon70-200 mm f/2.8 VR for $950. I looked into it but some of the reviews are not that great compared to the II. I know I can't afford to buy the II anytime soon but not sure if I should spend $950 on a lens if it's not going to work. I want to get the lens to take pics of my son in marching band and at his Jazz concerts. It doesn't come with the mounting clip but I'm thinking that's not a big deal. Is there anything I should ask or look at if I do buy it? </p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Alma</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

The image shows the first generation 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. The lens should work just fine with the D5300, as all

Nikon 70-200 AF lenses would. Nikon has just announced the third generation. Maybe try to bargen down the price

further. Otherwise, test the lens and make sure that it is fully functional.

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>I don't completely understand what you mean with 'if it's not going to work'<br />If the lens is somehow broken in any way, I would stay away from it, since you'll be being it as far as I understand without any kind of guarantee<br>

Also the price tag is not exactly cheap, average at best, especially considering the mounting clip (lens foot?) is missing.<br>

It's a pretty big, heavy lens, and the lack of the foot will mean you eg won't be able to use a monopod (which especially when you have to hold it for a long time, e.g. during a concert, really is a great option - I e.g. use my 70-200 VRII on a monopod shooting catwalk shows -)<br>

And of course the D5300 isn't a large body, so there might be a chance that the combination feels out of balance/uncomfortable to hold when used handheld (I for that reason always add a grip on the camera when I use such a big lens)</p>

<p>The VR1 type of the 2.8/7-200 isn't really that bad though, on the contrary even, as you can read here http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (Bjorn Rosslet is a among Nikon shooters very highly regarded reviewer)<br>

This review however in particular discusses the lens when used on a DX body (like your D5300) <br>

Nikon some time after the introduction of this lens also came with FX (full frame) bodies, and on those camera's the lens definitely showed serious shortcoming (for certain types of photography) such as loss of corner sharpness and vignetting<br>

That was one of the reasons why they upgraded to the VRII version where those issues were solved</p>

<p>In short, first and for all. IMO don't buy it if you fear there might be some kind of mechanical or optical (eg after a fall or banging it against eg a door post) optical issues.<br>

Also not the lowest price possible, lack of the lens foot could become an issue at a later point of time/use</p>

<p>But in itself not really a bad lens, really was top of the line at the time of its introduction<br>

Excellent (optical) results on DX camera, reportedly mixed results though when used on FX bodies (which was kind of acknowledged by Nikon with the release of the VRII version)</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

In a few months, there may also be a price recalibration on the used market when the new 70-200/2.8E FL reaches the market, the VR

MK II and Mk I prices are likely to be adjusted down slightly over time.

 

Make sure the lens works correctly; at that price it should be fully functional. If you need a replacement tripod mount, e.g.

RRS makes one for this lens. Nikon may also sell theirs as a spare part. The lens is excellent in many ways and results in very pleasing images.

[alma_jimenez]

<p>Thank you!!! I meant if it's not going to work with my camera type :) Seller said lens is in perfect condition he just got a Canon and needs to sell his lenses. He had it for $1150 but I got it down to $950 he won't go any lower but i'll keep trying :) </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Alma</p>

[alma_jimenez]

<p>What's the difference between these 2 lenses?</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Obvious I don't have the latest 70-200mm/f2.8 E FL announced this morning, but here are the other existing Nikon 70-200mm AF-S VR lenses:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16797874-lg.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[Two23]

<blockquote>

<p>I have a D5300 camera......<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will see no difference. I'm still using the 70-200mm f2.8 VR1 (original) on D800E for weddings. Great lens. If you aren't in a big hurry, I'd hold off until the lastest version is actually being shipped. That will bump the prices down on the older two. Even when the price of the 2nd version comes down a bit, I'm planning on just keeping the 1st version. It works just fine. If you're using a d5300, the first version is a no-brainer.<br>

<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>Weight and bulk.<br>

If you are young and physically fit, the heavier 2.8 lens is OK. I had no problem with a 20 pound camera bag, when I was in my early 20s. And a F2 with long lens was not a problem to use.<br>

But after 30, as you get older, each additional pound makes a difference. Today (well past 30), I would NOT carry a 20 pound camera bag, except on a handcart with wheels. <br>

I decided to pass on the 80-200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR to go with the lighter 70-200/4 VR. As much as I would love the f2.8, the weight difference made the decision for me. <br>

You can also crank up the ISO on your D5300 to levels that I could not even dream of, back when I was shooting film.<br>

Having said that, there are times and places where nothing will replace FAST glass; 50/1.4. 50/1.8, 85/1.8. VR will not compensate for subject movement, only yours.</p>