Now Joined The Nikon 70-200VR Club....

[TonyH]

Bought the secondhand lens will collect it tomorrow.....

Great price, can't wait till I get chance to have a good go at it..... possibly Indy if I can get away from work!!

Thanks for all of the input given regards to this.

Regards

Tony

[NikonUser]

I don't think I would spend $2000 on a used lens that I could get off Birddog for only $300 more...

Having said that though I realise there is no stock of them worldwide and they are hard to come by at the moment.... so I guess it just depends on how badly you want it.

Here is a link to a post on the Nikonians site about what to look for in a used lens...

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID6/3432.html

Hope that helps

Paul

[kipper]

I sold mine for $2k for a little over 5months used. Another guy had a used one that was a year old and sold his for $2.4k. It really depends on when you want it. If you want a lens now spend $2k, if you can wait a few weeks/months for it then pay the bit extra and get new.

[TonyH]

I'd be happy to wait for a few weeks, but no one seems to have any real idea how much longer it is going to be out of stock for.

This model does appear to be the one to have but the secondhand price does stick in my throat a little.

Is the quality / usefulness of the 80-400VR much worse than the 70-200vr?

[daniel_r]

Tony,

You might remember back in this thread where I weighing up the options of a 80-400 or the 70-200 2.8...

I ended up going with the 80-400VR from Birddog. I'm yet to get a decent opportunity to really test it out.

Briefly:
* it's no 70-200 2.8 VR in terms of focus speed. Focus is slow, plenty of focus whirring going on. While shooting a soccer game during my lunch break the other day, I've got to experiment a bit more with the VR modes. AF technique comes into play a bit, so does the use of the focus limit switch. The 80-400 would be brilliant if they gave it AF-S. This is most definitely not a full time sports lens.

* Sharpness - not too shabby at all. After migrating from the 70-300G, it's like I had a coke bottle mounted before. Compared to the 70-200 shots I have from borrowed lenses, the 80-400 is sharp enough for me, for the price .

I'm really happy with it. I feel it's certainly easier to handle than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S I had on loan for a while

I'd like to get a Sigma 70-200 2.8 to complement it. For the price of the Sigma and the 80-400VR that's a fair bit of glass for less/around the Maxwell retail price of the 70-200VR!

I hear the SB800 calling first though...

[pippin88]

I'd be looking at the Sigma 70-200. For ~$1400 you can get lens and a 2x TC meaning you get dead sharp 70-200 (some claim it to be sharper than the Nikon - even if not they are equal) and upto 400mm (still with good sharpness).

Sure you don't get VR, but is it worth near $1k? (diff between Sigma and your Nikon price).

[birddog114]

pippin88,
Yes and No, the Sigma + TC can't be compared with the 80-400VR.
Each lens has difference use in it + pros and cons.

I know few people have both the 70-200VR + TC 1.7 + the 80-400VR.
Same as few members have both the Sigma 70-200 + TC & 80-400VR.

This does not always mean, they can substitute other and depend on your budget same as how do you want to use them?

[glamy]

Tony,
I got the 70-200 2.8, I am glad I paid extra for the VR compared to the Sigma considering the conditions I sometimes end up taking pictures in. On the other hand, even though I have a 1.7 TC, I wish I had a 80-400 VR for the reach (just like you may need at the race), the TC is just too cumbersome to put on and off again and again. The 80-400 is more versatile and as Birddog says it is nice to have both as they are different. The trouble is they may not allow the use of a 400 at the race like they've done in Melbourne!

[antman]

Glamy,

The trouble is they may not allow the use of a 400 at the race like they've done in Melbourne!

Could you please explain ?

[MCWB]

Glamy,

The trouble is they may not allow the use of a 400 at the race like they've done in Melbourne!

Could you please explain ?

The Australian F1 (and Moto) GP Corporation doesn't permit the use of lenses with an 'effective focal length' over 200 mm. Which as I keep saying is just rubbish and there's no real justification for it: I recently shot at the Belgian GP and you could take any lens in you like (plus any alcohol you liked ).

[glamy]

Antman,
Just as MCWB said, this was reported by members who attended the F1 Grand Prix. If I do recall, one member even had to remove the TC from his 70-200...
Cheers,
Gerard

[antman]

Thanks MCWB.

Well that certainly seems pretty stupid.

Are they actually enforcing this policy?

I wonder if they are checking every lens on every camera that goes through the gates and then calculating the "effective focal length" depending in the sensor size.
Or maybe they just judge it on the sheer size of the lens.

How about all those compact ultra zoom cameras like the Canon Powershot S1 (38-380 mm equiv).

Its just ridiculous.

[glamy]

Antman
Read the thread : Your opinion?
Cheers,
Gerard

[antman]

Thanks Glamy,

Just saw that thread.

Still wondering how they enforce that kind of thing.

[birddog114]

Thanks Glamy,

Just saw that thread.

Still wondering how they enforce that kind of thing.

antman,
They enforce it by authorized all the security guys to approach you and asked you to remove the TC or leave, and trust me: they know what they're doing and talking about.

[TonyH]

Took some test shots today with the lens. It was raining so they weren't great quality. I've offered $1500 for the lens.

Considering New Price and the fact that there is no warranty, I reckon that is really all it is worth and a fair offer.

I'll find out tomorrow what the owner says. I don't believe they'll take it, but the longer they sit on it the wanting too high a price, the sooner new stock will hit the shelves (eventually it will have to) and then the backside will drop from the secondhand market, especially if the new version has improvements or extra bells and whistles.

I can live without the lens but for the money they are wanting, it is too big a risk. One minor repair will take it over the cost of a new one.

[glamy]

Not everybody is aware of the bargain prices... I have seen a s/h 28-70 for the same as I paid for a new one. It was gone within a few days! They will get what they ask for.
Cheers,
Gerard

[TonyH]

Gerard,

they possibly will do but it has been there for 2 weeks already........

you never know.....

Cheers

Tony

[marc]

Gerard,

they possibly will do but it has been there for 2 weeks already........

you never know.....

Cheers

Tony

I'm surprised it hasn't gone already, as long as that lens is clean, I think it's a fair price.
(Paid $2200 for mine 6 months ago, new )

[TonyH]

Hi Marc,

you may have missed the point.... this is a secondhand lens, without warranty. Your $2.2k was new with a warranty (I assume).


Regards

Tony

[marc]

Am well aware Tony that it's second hand, you also must remember that for a lot of people who aren't privvy to this forum and other avenue's, this lens remains at over $3k to buy.
Therefore @ $2000 it's a fair price

Cheers
Marc

[TonyH]

Thanks for all the help... I'll post some shots once I've got the hang of it...

Tony

[birddog114]

Paul just got one fresh brand new 70-200VR this morning, he'll test it out tonight and will perhaps see few pics from him.

Welcome Paul to the VR club!