Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · VR or no VR

  
 
Kpsingh0
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · VR or no VR


I currently have d7000 and it might be time to buy a zoom lens. At the moment I have a 35 prime and a ultra wide angle. I started my search with the 55-200 from nikon with VR, which is avaliable quite cheap right now. But then i started to dig deeper and I like the idea of investing in a slightly older non vr 80-200 f2.8. One of the biggest draws in the low light capabilities and the build quility, not to mention the results i see from the lens. What do you guys thing would pair better with the D7000.


Nov 09, 2013 at 10:35 AM
VilleK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · VR or no VR


It depends.

Buy 55-200 VR or 55-300 VR if you don't want to carry 1.5kg of extra glass with you.

Buy 80-200/2.8 for sports and other stuff that needs faster shutter speeds.



Nov 09, 2013 at 10:43 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · VR or no VR


The D7K deserves much better than the consumer throwaway 55-200
Welcome to FM...we'll do our best to help you spend your money wisely.
The AF-S 80-200's a great choice or look into the new 70-200 Tamron,
it's been getting rave reviews.



Nov 09, 2013 at 10:47 AM
barisaxer
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · VR or no VR


Trust the monkey. He knows long glass and will save you money in the long run.


Nov 09, 2013 at 12:05 PM
MitchSC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · VR or no VR


barisaxer wrote:
Trust the monkey. He knows long glass and will save you money in the long run.


Totally agree!!!!



Nov 09, 2013 at 12:13 PM
InlawBiker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · VR or no VR


I have the 80-200 AF-D on my D7000, I used it all Fall for football. It's amazing, now I wonder why I waited so long to buy it. For sports it's perfect.

For general purpose I wish I had VR, such as for indoor stuff. I might sell it next year and buy the Tamron. Usually they have a rebate of some kind.

I would trust Trenchmonkey too, after reading this forum and the great advice here I'm glad I have the D7000 :-)



Nov 09, 2013 at 12:19 PM
NickHenderson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · VR or no VR


Save up for the 70-200 f/4 VR


Nov 09, 2013 at 01:31 PM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · VR or no VR


Depends on what you want to do with it - if you're looking for subject isolation and faster shutter speeds, the faster the lens the better, so f2.8 is better. Also if you want to attach teleconverters, you have another stop of light to eat up.

Just be aware how large and heavy the 2.8 zooms are, even the 24-70 is a serious hunk of glass and metal, the 70-200's more so. That's why people like the f4 VR's but you do lose a stop of light.



Nov 09, 2013 at 01:46 PM
the solitaire
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · VR or no VR


I think Trenchmonkey pretty much summed it up. The D7xxx cameras deserve better then just a consumer throw-away lens.

The biggest question is, how much size and weight do you want to take with you?

Personally I use an AF 80-200 f2,8D lens for pretty much all of my tele-photo stuff. I do own a smaller and lighter AF 70-210 f4-5,6D for those days where I want to "travel light".

If the 70-210 hadnīt been that cheap I would have picked up a AF-S 70-300 Vr in itīs stead. As things are, I got the 70-210 on the cheap, found out itīs an amazingly sharp and contrasty lens but it spends most of itīs time on a shelf because I bring the 80-200 f2,8 wherever I go.

I donīt think I miss VR a lot. I have a single VR lens, use it without switching VR on though.



Nov 09, 2013 at 04:04 PM
gfinlayson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · VR or no VR


Will's (trenchmonkey) right. The D7000 deserves much better than 55-200 consumer glass; in fact its sensor (with a similar pixel density to the D800) deserves the best glass you can afford. Any of the 80-200 f/2.8 lenses are superb. I had the excellent AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 until I added Sigma's 120-300 f/2.8 Sport to my bag. It was super sharp from wide open and took TCs very well. Tamron's new 70-200 is also very highly rated.



Nov 09, 2013 at 04:43 PM
DGC1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · VR or no VR


There's a reason why the 80-200 AF-D is still manufacturered today. It's a hell of a fine lens for what you pay (new or used). Is there bettter stuff out there? Yes, but at a much higher price.


Nov 09, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Kpsingh0
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · VR or no VR


Thanks for all the info so far. Being new to the photo world. I picked up the d7000 after all the amazing review. Spend all my time in manual mode so I'm thankful for it. I guess part of my real question was is the expensive lens really worth it. And you guys are definitely making me think it is.


Nov 09, 2013 at 05:37 PM
glassartist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · VR or no VR


I'll add another endorsement of Trenchmonkey. I had the 80-200 and it is indeed a professional grade of glass. I only sold it to upgrade to the 70-200 f4 (for weight reasons) as noted above, the 80-200 is a substantial piece of glass.

Note that there are really three versions of the 80-200 around on the used market usually referred to as the push-pull, the two-ring and the AF-S. The push-pull is (I think) the oldest iteration; the two-ring (which I had) is well respected and considered an optically better lens then the push-pull; The AF-S had a silent-wave motor in the lens and is usually considered optically the best of the bunch. Nikon still makes the two-ring version. The AF-S version still shows up on the used market.

Just know what you are buying.



Nov 09, 2013 at 05:46 PM
Kpsingh0
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · VR or no VR


When you guys refer to the new Tamron is that this:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200MM-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B00A34GP52/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1384047981&sr=1-3&keywords=tamron+70-200

How is that different from:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-200mm-Digital-Cameras-A001NII/dp/B0012GDOQS/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1384047981&sr=1-2&keywords=tamron+70-200

And how do these compare to something like this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1251580/0#11907743



Nov 09, 2013 at 08:50 PM
Elan II
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · VR or no VR


The new Tamron is stabilized, better optically and has faster focus. The Nikon is better than the old Tamron, but is also not stabilized.

Is there a reason why you're limiting yourself to two very dissimilar choices? You skipped over the 70-200/4, 70-300/VR, or a DX tele like the Tokina 50-135/2.8, which is a personal favorite. You can only buy that one used though. It's discontinued.






Nov 09, 2013 at 09:07 PM
Kpsingh0
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · VR or no VR


Elan II wrote:
The new Tamron is stabilized, better optically and has faster focus. The Nikon is better than the old Tamron, but is also not stabilized.

Is there a reason why you're limiting yourself to two very dissimilar choices? You skipped over the 70-200/4, 70-300/VR, or a DX tele like the Tokina 50-135/2.8, which is a personal favorite. You can only buy that one used though. It's discontinued.



I like having the idea of f2.8. I have the Tokina wide angle with f4 and I miss the low light capability. As far as the dissimilar choices I guess i just don't know any better.



Nov 09, 2013 at 09:20 PM
Elan II
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · VR or no VR


I think you can come close to buying the latest (Version II) Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR used for the price of the new Tamron. You can buy version I used or refurbished for less than this Tamron. I would go for that one before dumping $1,500 on a lens with questionable durability. I doubt you'll ever wear either Nikon out.

Edit: But going back to the Tokina, constant 2.8 and around $600 used would be a great choice if you want something more compact than the Nikon 80-200. It's at least as sharp as the Nikon and the wider focal length is very useful.





Nov 09, 2013 at 09:27 PM
Kpsingh0
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · VR or no VR


Yeah I can imagine dumping 1.5k into a lens at the moment, body wasn't half that much. Definitely more comfortable around the lower end of these lens.


Nov 09, 2013 at 09:37 PM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · VR or no VR


Well, don't tie up (or borrow) money you can't afford, but buying used high end glass, you don't have to lose any money over a year or two of ownership. And I'd rather have high end glass on a lower end body any day than the other way around.

Bodies are almost always a losing $ proposition, although there are occasional killer used deals out there. I had a Canon 7D for almost a year I think and sold it for a profit.



Nov 11, 2013 at 08:58 AM
trenchmonkey
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · VR or no VR


If you buy used quality glass at a good price, you won't take much of a hit (if any)
should you decide to sell it down the road. You might be out shipping/PayPal fees
but I'd look at that as a cheap rental. Glass first, you can take THAT to the bank.



Nov 11, 2013 at 09:23 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.