70 - 200 2.8 nikon lens

S

stevieg567

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Hello, new to talk photography, I’m looking for a second hand 70 - 200 Nikon lens. Does any one have any ideas where to shop; I’m not having much luck on eBay with my limited money situation.
Cheers
 
When you say "limited money situation" - how much have you got to play with? The 70-200 VR goes for a fair whack...

Have you thought of hunting down the older 80-200 AF-S? By all accounts just as good but minus the VR...
 
I have owned both, still have the 80-200, the 70-200,since sold, is an awful lot more money for little, if any,gain in image quality.

Just my opinion .

:)
 
fracster said:
I have owned both, still have the 80-200, the 70-200,since sold, is an awful lot more money for little, if any,gain in image quality.

Just my opinion .

:)
Click to expand...

The VR and AF-S can make a big difference in some situations....
 
Again, it depends. For motorsport, yes, for portraiture or use on a tripod most of the time, no
 
I`m not convinced, but shall bow to your wisdom............:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
I`m not convinced, but shall bow to your wisdom............:thumbs:
Click to expand...


The AF-S makes a huge difference for motorsports, well it does for me, although if I could have had an 80-200 AF-S at the right money I'd probably have bought that instead
 
The Af-D works fine for me on the country sport side of things, and that stuff is pretty quick.
 
fracster said:
The Af-D works fine for me on the country sport side of things, and that stuff is pretty quick.
Click to expand...

For me it was just one blind crest/corner at Knockhill where the AF-D was letting me down, I was hardly getting more than a 25% success rate, but with the AF-S it's nearer 95%
 
Flash In The Pan said:
For me it was just one blind crest/corner at Knockhill where the AF-D was letting me down, I was hardly getting more than a 25% success rate, but with the AF-S it's nearer 95%
Click to expand...

Again,begrudgingly......:D....fair comment Flash......:thumbs:
 
:D.....In fairness though, I tend to pick up the images as they leave the trees and follow them, which is why I like the 80-400, hated by many.The 80-200 and 300F4 that I also use are pretty good at this. The problem I have is when the shot has to be a snapshot of something being bloody quick and small, the 70-200 was not "that" great for those shots either, the 300 AF`ed faster.
 
Didn't I say "80-200 AF-S" earlier? You know, the last version of the 80-200 before the 70-200 VR came out...
 
stevieg567 said:
I’m not having much luck on eBay with my limited money situation.
Cheers
Click to expand...

I dont think limited money is going to get you a 70-200vr lens. Even used, they are selling for around a grand.
Have a look at the 80-200D, even new, its going to be about half the price of the VR version, or a Sigma 70-200.
A 70-200AF-S, if you can get one, is superb too, but prices are on the high side for these too.
Allan
 
The Sigma 70-200 is just not even slightly in the same league though is it... the focal lengths might be the same, but thats about where it ends.... a 500 quid lens vs a 1000 quid one... and no, its not just because of the branding.. and anyone who has tried both will tell you that in a flash...
 
desantnik said:
The Sigma 70-200 is just not even slightly in the same league though is it... the focal lengths might be the same, but thats about where it ends.... a 500 quid lens vs a 1000 quid one... and no, its not just because of the branding.. and anyone who has tried both will tell you that in a flash...
Click to expand...

True..... on a cropped sensor, but i have found VERY little difference on the D700, so i saved myself the money and got the Sigma, and have been very happy with it.
 
If money is not able to stretch to the circa £900 price tag for a 2nd hand 70-200VR then can I suggest the 70-300VR. OK, it doesn't have the f2.8 constant aperture but is still a great lens. I was toying with the idea of going for the 70-200VR a few weeks back, but with a little help and advice from the folks on here, I think another year with the 70-300 and maybe rent the 70-200 for a weekend and compare the results is the way forward.
 
desantnik said:
Have you thought of hunting down the older 80-200 AF-S? By all accounts just as good but minus the VR...
Click to expand...

How much do you rekon you could pick one of them up for 2nd hand?
 
Have a look on ebay... probably 500-600 ish
 
I bought one for about £550, Grays of Westminster had a couple for sale for just a little under a grand, they are very few and far between, once you have one, you tend to keep it.
I found mine much better balanced and sharper than the 80-200D and optically no different to the 70-200VR. I did find it very easy to hold steady and really didnt miss not having VR on it.

Mine went faulty and back to the shop, but, given the choice over the AF-S and VR, I would get another AF-S and save a few pounds.

I didnt think the Sigma version was very sharp, but it was rather big and heavy.
Allan
 
To be honest, having been a BIG fan of Canon's IS (their name for VR) I am shockingly dissapointed with the VR on the 70-200.

I've listened to my Nikon owning friend always telling me "turn that IS off its rubbish" and never listened to him. But now I know, on the Nikon, it is rubbish!

So, although I have a 70-200 2.8 VR, I'd suggest the 80-200 AF-S might actually be better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top