Travelinbri wrote:
How big heavy is this lens? Is this something for handholding and carrying around?
The tripod mount is removable so of course it is designed for hand holding.
Look at the specs. Do you use similar lenses? It is not that much larger/heavier.
It does reignite the issue of why there is no f/4 lens. Maybe we will see one in a couple of years when the market for the f/2.8 VR II is saturated.
Just remember, if you are putting any VR lens on a tripod, TURN OFF the VR. It may actually make the photos worse if you leave it on, the gyro will try to steady what is already steady!
edrud wrote:
Just remember, if you are putting any VR lens on a tripod [...]
If you are putting any VR lens on a tripod, READ THE MANUAL. Older VR mechanisms did not work well on tripods, but newer ones work just fine. Know which one is on your lens and how to use it best. Know your tools individually, since everything evolves and too-general guidelines will not benefit you.
EB-1 wrote:
It does reignite the issue of why there is no f/4 lens.
It's a legitimate question. My personal impression is that Nikon won't make one because most people who might buy a 70-200/4 are happy with the 70-300VR. I would think, and I'm guessing Nikon thinks, that the number of people who don't like the 70-300VR but cannot afford the 70-200/2.8 (or can't/won't carry it up a mountain, or whatever) is too small to justify the creation of another product which (a) needs to create enough sales to be worthwhile on its own, and (b) takes some sales away from the other two lenses mentioned.
That perception may not be correct, of course. Your guess is as good as mine.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
It's a legitimate question. My personal impression is that Nikon won't make one because most people who might buy a 70-200/4 are happy with the 70-300VR. I would think, and I'm guessing Nikon thinks, that the number of people who don't like the 70-300VR but cannot afford the 70-200/2.8 (or can't/won't carry it up a mountain, or whatever) is too small to justify the creation of another product which (a) needs to create enough sales to be worthwhile on its own, and (b) takes some sales away from the other two lenses mentioned.
That perception may not be correct, of course. Your guess is as good as mine. ...Show more →
Solid reasoning to me. When I was a Canon shooter I had both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the smaller F4 version (great lens). Canon didn't have a decent 70-300 though, only a couple of very poor ones so the 70-200 f4 was the only option really if you wanted something lightweight but high quality
70-300 for landscape work is basically on par with the current 70-200 so moving to a true 70-200 f4 wouldn't really be of much advantage overall.
Now a 14-24 F4 and/or a 24-70/24-105 F4 type zoom is an area where I think they could see huge sales.
The f2.8 zooms are awesome yes, but not everyone needs f2.8, and a ton of landscape shooters are hauling extra weight around just for the top IQ those lenses provide.
Give that IQ but in a smaller/lighter lens, and with a lesser price and tons of people would be lining up to buy
millsart wrote:
Solid reasoning to me. When I was a Canon shooter I had both the 70-200 f2.8 IS and the smaller F4 version (great lens). Canon didn't have a decent 70-300 though, only a couple of very poor ones so the 70-200 f4 was the only option really if you wanted something lightweight but high quality
70-300 for landscape work is basically on par with the current 70-200 so moving to a true 70-200 f4 wouldn't really be of much advantage overall.
Now a 14-24 F4 and/or a 24-70/24-105 F4 type zoom is an area where I think they could see huge sales.
The f2.8 zooms are awesome yes, but not everyone needs f2.8, and a ton of landscape shooters are hauling extra weight around just for the top IQ those lenses provide.
Give that IQ but in a smaller/lighter lens, and with a lesser price and tons of people would be lining up to buy...Show more →
Do we really need a 70-200 f/4 with what we have today?? The 70-300 is at 5 at 200 wide open and with todays iso's and vr does that extra ap really help that often, sure there are going to be some situations where you night need it. And also with how good the 55-200vr is for it's price if you can compare it dollar to performance against the canon 70-200 f/4 is and see if the value would be worth it. Only add about 10-20% more to the canon price and expect that's where Nikon's would be.
I have a 70-300 and the 55-200, I have no desire for a 70-200 f/4. 300 f/4 vr it what I would rather see come out or a 400 5.6vr. But 70-200 f/4 I have no use for given my current set up. 70-200vr 2.8 I could use as it's much faster than 5.6 or 5 compared to 4.
Theres no need to make the job harder on yourself holding a lens, even a lighter one, up to your eye unsupported for 3-4 hours straight when your shooting 3000 marathon competitors as they cross the finish line for example.
*********
My GF runs marathons and that was the situation that I had in mind when asking about a monopod.
So with "newer" VR, the issue of using turning off VR when using tripod/monopod is no longer a consideration?
SoundHound wrote:
I am a senior citizen and ofter use the Nikon with the 70-200 zoom (a bit lighter than the Canon) and a 1Ds III with the 200 F2.0 for many hours. Monopods limit your mobility and framing angle. Kids, you have to suffer for your art.
I like that I just shoot a tribute show with my 200vr, I and I did suffer for my "art" some things are just worth it though.
SHVv wrote:
Theres no need to make the job harder on yourself holding a lens, even a lighter one, up to your eye unsupported for 3-4 hours straight when your shooting 3000 marathon competitors as they cross the finish line for example.
*********
My GF runs marathons and that was the situation that I had in mind when asking about a monopod.
So with "newer" VR, the issue of using turning off VR when using tripod/monopod is no longer a consideration?
The newer ones should be able to realize they are on a tripod and go into a different mode of correction.
What used to happen with the early modes was it would go into sort of a "feedback loop" because it was looking for shake, and not getting as it was on a steady platform and it would go a bit crazy
Monopods generally are fine though as they just aren't that steady so VR has always proved helpful on them regardless of the generation.
