DSLRUsers.com

Hi All,

these may be a silly questions but....

What makes the Nikon 70-200VR such a good lens, at the moment I have the kit lens, 18-70DX and the Nikor 70-300G,

wouldn't the 70-300G have a far greater zoom?

what does the VR stand for?

I am scratching my head at the moment... as in the future I'll be looking at buying another lens and I have been thinking that I wouldn't mind a lens that has a good wide angle (say 28) and a good zoom of arround 300, thus I won't have to change lenses so much.... what would you guys recommend?

Thanks heaps for your help

Gray,

I've used the 70-200VR once, for about 5 minutes, and then silently wept at how nice it is.
The 70-300G lens certainly has more reach, but it isnt in the same league as the 200. The VR allows for handholding at, I think, at least 2 stops less.

The guys here who own that lens will be able to tell you more. You've opened up a can a' worms comparing it to the 70-300G

I want this lens. But then, I want a lot of lenses.

Gray: the 70-300G has more reach, but that's about it.

VR = Vibration reduction, enables you to hand-hold at a shutter speed 2-3 stops below what's usually possible. The 70-200 VR has a constant 2.8 maximum aperture, is much sharper than the 70-200 G, and has lovely bokeh. It also costs about 10 times as much.

MCWB wrote:It also costs about 10 times as much.

... and is worth every cent!

Gray, not stupid, there are a million reasons why it is better. VR stands for vibration reduction (an electronic process to reduce vibration), it is 2.8 for faster shutter speeds, has a motor in the lens for faster focus acquisition, built to a better quality, etc. Why don't you read about it and ask if you have any questions after?

Maxwell's site on the 70-200:

http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... afsvr.html


Reviews:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_ ... FS70-200VR

http://www.digital-images.net/Lenses/AFS_VR/afs_vr.html

http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUI ... S70200.htm

http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

Hi Gray
perhaps you can spend a bit of time reading up on the 70-200 VR. There are oodles of reviews on this lens. Just open up google and type in "70-200 VR reviews" You're bound to get hours of reading from it.

If you also run a search in this forum for the 70-200 you'll also find many threads talking about it's unbelieveable potential....however you should remember that any lens is only as good as the person controlling it ! In saying that, comparing the 70-300G to the 70-200VR is like comparing a Hyundai Excel to a Rolls Royce Silver Spirit (in every way - including their price tags).

Ps your question what would we recommend? Get the 70-200 AFS VR ED and then get the 1.7 Tele Converter, which multiplies the range by 1.7 so becomes 119-340mm. Cost a bit less than $3k. That is what I would recommend, not sure of your budget though.

It is almost impossible to compare these two lenses directly, because they are so different. It's a bit like comparing a D70 to a D2x!

Although I haven't used the 70-300 G, I have used the 70-300 ED extensively, and I currently own the 70-200 VR.

The Vibration Reduction technology is the first thing that separates the two lenses you mentioned. Nikon has developed this system, which stabilises the internal components of the lens, so that the photographer can effectively use it at slower shutter speeds than would normally be the case with a telephoto lens. The 70-200 VR also has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8, compared with f4.0 - f5.6 for the 70-300 G.

In addition, most reviewers have commented extremely favourably on the optics of the 70-200 VR, noting its sharpness and contrast.

Although the 70-300 G has greater reach, it is not built to the same specs as the 70-200 VR. This is not to say it's a bad lens - there are plenty of pix in this forum that would suggest otherwise - it is more that the 70-200 VR, which has a far higher price point, is felt to be superior.

Hope this is useful.

Thanks Guys, you have been of great help.....

Another way of summing up the differences might be to say that the 70-300G is a lens targeted very much at the amateur end of the market - those who want the reach so that they can say they have the reach.

At the other end of the scale is the 70-200VR, targeted at serious photographers and pros.

But the pricing of the two sums it up perfectly: sub-$300, vs $3000, and you truly gets what you pays for.

Gray,
See CD at one of the meet in Canberra and try his 70-200VR then you get more easy feeling of pulling out your wallet for one of them, and never regret!

Birddog114 wrote:never regret!

Damn straight, I can't see anyone who buys this lens regretting it.

MCWB wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:never regret!

Damn straight, I can't see anyone who buys this lens regretting it.

Unless, after you got the lens and your other half wants a diamond ring equally to the paid price of the lens, or a threat of ending the lifeline in the family court.

Birddog114 wrote:Unless, after you got the lens and your other half wants a diamond ring equally to the paid price of the lens, or a threat of ending the lifeline in the family court.

Deary me...that's a good point. But the lens is shinier than the ring!

Any other Nikkors that are really sought after (beside the 80-400)? Every Nikon guy I've met has drooled over the 70-200 VR.

Andoru wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:Unless, after you got the lens and your other half wants a diamond ring equally to the paid price of the lens, or a threat of ending the lifeline in the family court.

Deary me...that's a good point. But the lens is shinier than the ring!

Any other Nikkors that are really sought after (beside the 80-400)? Every Nikon guy I've met has drooled over the 70-200 VR.

Yes, there're hold bunch of guys and gals with the 80-400VR on this board.

Birddog114 wrote:

MCWB wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:never regret!

Damn straight, I can't see anyone who buys this lens regretting it.

Unless, after you got the lens and your other half wants a diamond ring equally to the paid price of the lens, or a threat of ending the lifeline in the family court.

Birddy, have you been eavesdropping Terri and my conversations?

Andoru wrote:Deary me...that's a good point. But the lens is shinier than the ring!

My fiance would disagree with that statement!

Birddog114 wrote:Unless, after you got the lens and your other half wants a diamond ring equally to the paid price of the lens

If I get away with spending that then I've got a bargain and I'll be a very happy man. The price goes mental as soon as you mention 'wedding' or 'engagement'...

Wait a sec, the lens cost $1000 right?

Birddog114 wrote:or a threat of ending the lifeline in the family court.

As you said, never regret!

Wait a sec, the lens cost $1000 right?

Erm, Trent - if you're talking about rings for her, I think your "$1000" is missing a zero at the end of it...!!

I see you are well versed in these games.

wile_E wrote:

Wait a sec, the lens cost $1000 right?

Erm, Trent - if you're talking about rings for her, I think your "$1000" is missing a zero at the end of it...!!

Married life! Wai is closer, Trent I would start lower, say the lens is worth $500 but you don't mind if she spends up to $1,000. It is a long move from $1k to $10k but I bet she gets you there (I wanted cubic zirconia, seriously, but suffice to say we have a real diamond. Why, even we couldn't tell the difference?). Just try and get a few concessions along the journey to $10k for yourself Trent, sort of like we will buy the ring for you now, then over the next few years we will get me a D2X, 200-400Vr, etc Good luck

Glen wrote:

wile_E wrote:

Wait a sec, the lens cost $1000 right?

Erm, Trent - if you're talking about rings for her, I think your "$1000" is missing a zero at the end of it...!!

Married life! Wai is closer, Trent I would start lower, say the lens is worth $500 but you don't mind if she spends up to $1,000. It is a long move from $1k to $10k but I bet she gets you there (I wanted cubic zirconia, seriously, but suffice to say we have a real diamond. Why, even we couldn't tell the difference?). Just try and get a few concessions along the journey to $10k for yourself Trent, sort of like we will buy the ring for you now, then over the next few years we will get me a D2X, 200-400Vr, etc Good luck

Good works.

Calling all young fellas!
Make sure you get all your toys prior to get married. Life won't be the same. Don't be shy and hesitate to make a step forward.
Once you got married! your toys will belong to her as well but her diamond ring won't be in your possession.

So! think first!

gray
i used the 70-300 for sports shots for local paper but found at 300 it was a bit soft, then i bought the 70-200vr !!!!!!!!! what a difference in quality, it just jumps out and slaps you in the face, a fantastic lens.... but then i wanted something with a longer reach and lusted for the 200-400vr... well these photo's dont slap you in the face they just knock you out !!!!
expensive but as someone else has said "you get what you pays for " i would recommend getting the 70-200vr its a fantastic piece of glass, unfortunately now i'm lusting for a d2x........ oh god when will it end

cheers rob

robw25 wrote:....... oh god when will it end

Not a question one should be asking ....

Glen wrote:Get the 70-200 AFS VR ED and then get the 1.7 Tele Converter, which multiplies the range by 1.7 so becomes 119-340mm.

Is there a reason most people tend to go for the 1.7 TC and not the 2.0 TC?? Is there some magical calculation that makes it the better option?

Manta,

I took Birddog's advice and got the TC-17EII with my 70-200VR, and it is a perfect match (heaven , not that I will be going there). The TC-20E11 tends to make the shots on the soft side.

Thanks Fozzie.
(doesn't get me any closer to owning either of them but at least I know where I'm heading!)

gstark wrote:

robw25 wrote:....... oh god when will it end

Not a question one should be asking ....

Indeed, there is no cure for NAS! Well maybe marriage will take care of it...

Thanks Guys for your help,

I think I might add the 70-200VR lens to my list of things to buy before I get engaged, my list is now at:

- another Motorbike
- Big Screen TV
- 70-200VR
- a House

Gray wrote:Thanks Guys for your help,

I think I might add the 70-200VR lens to my list of things to buy before I get engaged, my list is now at:

- another Motorbike
- Big Screen TV

Go for a projector of some sort.

Nothing beats watching DVDs on a 12' diagonal screen.

Except watching the F1GP on the same screen. (Or at the circuit!)

The ultimate - strap yourself in your chair at home, hook up the VR and replace one of the drivers at the F1 in realtime - become that person and run the race - but never, never try the Jacques Cousteau scenario

sirhc55 wrote:The ultimate - strap yourself in your chair at home, hook up the VR and replace one of the drivers at the F1 in realtime - become that person and run the race - but never, never try the Jacques Cousteau scenario

Except at Monaco!

Well actually, now that you mention it, I do have a projector that I bought for $120 online at auction.... it is an older type (fairly big in size) but it does the job at projecting a picture....

Gray dont bother with the house .Get one when your hitched as if you buy it on your own and she moves in you will have to give her hal if you split up so i say give her half the debt as well!