 |
|
|
Philip Shillit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 25, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Without the best lens I have ever used. Sharp is an understatement. The VR works better than I could ever believe. Hand held at full 200mm, f11, I can get sharp photos at 1/20s exposure. Stunning. It is expensive...but worth every last penny! I upgraded from a 80-200 2.8 afs. That too is a great lense, but slightly lacking in overall sharpness....and lacking VR!
|
|
Cons:
|
Still to find one
|
|
|
|
|
 Feb 18, 2007
|
|
Fatbelly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Feb 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality and colour rendition. Built to last.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, but you only get what you pay for.
|
|
I have bought this lens after buying a Sigma 100-300mm f4.
Although the Sigma had more reach at the long end it does not in any way compete with the Nikon for image quality.
That is not to say that the Sigma is not a good lens because it is, its just that the Nikon lens blows the competition right out of the water.
The VR is amazing, I have taken sharp pictures using the VR at shutter speeds of 1/15 of a second and that's hand held with no mono-pod or tripod. The lens feels well built as well, not at all plastic or fragile.
If you are looking at this review then you probably already know something about this lens, if you have the money then you go ahead and buy it you will not in any way be disappointed.
Here are some photos taken at the British Museum in London. All were in low light and hand held. If you have never visited the British Museum then you really really should it is wonderful, jammed full of mind blowing artifacts many of which are thousands of years old.
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/433016/an/0/page/1#433016
Here are some sports photos. they were taken on a cold and foggy / misty day.
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/433016/an/0/page/1#433016
|
|
|
Feb 8, 2007
|
|
Gary Thom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, feel, look, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight
|
|
Just bought it yesterday, take a few test shots, was initially disappointed by the mild blur, then realized I had take a pretty good shot at 1.6s / F5.0 / 70mm, so eager to get started I hadn't even changed the camera settings!
This one is a keeper 
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2006
|
|
Timm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4390
|
|
Review Date: Nov 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It's mine.
|
|
Cons:
|
No A-S mount, zoom ring too tight.
|
|
|
I borrowed one of these beasties a couple of years ago and immediately fell in love. I finally added it to my kit a week ago.
Shooting on a D200, the low-light AF is impressive, the VR really does what it's supposed to, what more can I say? Oh, yeah--that bokeh--yummm.
Works wonderfully with the Canon 500D macro diopter, making for one fast, sharp macro lens. I really enjoy the vesitality of zoom for macro work. I can choose my working distance and BG very easily and quickly, while setting the image size with the focus.
I also have the 17-35 2.8, and having the common 77mm filter is great--one of each filter.
I get a lot of amusement from some of these reviews--too large and heavy? It's a 70-200 f2.8--of course it's huge!
Cons:
How many photogs willing to lay out $1700 US don't use an A-S style QR on their tripod? How much trouble would it be to dovetail the base of the tripod mount? Oh, well, so Kirk Enterprises gets another $70 of my money--their mount is beautifully machined and I reccomend it highly.
The zoom ring is far too stiff for my tastes. Hopefully it'll loosen up a bit with use.
Now I have to find a holster that actually fits this rig for ski season. It does fit in my LowePro TLZ AW, but barely, and that with the hood reversed. I think a colapsable rubber hood might be the thing for ski photography.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2006
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14726
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, VR, built like a tank and best of all sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Price maybe but you get what you pay for
|
|
|
Perhaps the best lens I have ever owned and I have owned many nice lenses when I had Canon gear. I have nothing but praise for this lens.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2006
|
|
dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6908
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very, very fast; VR is fantastic; Sharpness throughout range; Wonderful detail even for fast action; Build quality is phenominal.
|
|
Cons:
|
Much pricier than the 80-200 lens.
|
|
|
OK, it's pricey for a zoom. But if you stop to consider that it's a MUCH newer piece than the old 80-200 design, and adds VR, I guess the price is actually fairly much in line.
With that out of the way, I upgraded from the 80-200 f2.8 D ED, and at first I have to admit I wasn't "blown away". Shooting indoors with mediocre lighting and fast action as a test, I didn't find the images any brighter or more vibrant. However, I soon learned that the lens is far more versatile than the old one, and honestly does allow for many more uses. Once I figured out how to get more out of this lens, my "keeper" rate has actually gone way up. Panning with this lens is fantastic, and the VR really is for REAL. Handheld, this lens far exceeds the 80-200, even with faster shutter speeds. The detail is phenominal, and I doubt you will find a faster AF lens anywhere. I have used the equivalent L series Canon (70-200 2.8 IS) for a brief demo, and despite the salesman's claims, I believe this lens focuses faster, both for single and continuous AF.
I may be in the minority on this, but the only minor gripe I have is that the front focus trim ring rotates (the actual front filter area does not) and having bigger "mitts" I sometimes had to remind myself to keep my left hand away from it. Never was an issue with my 80-200, but that's of course a very minor issue, and one I'm completely adjusted to now.
There are a couple other advantages over the 80-200, in that (1) I can couple it up with a TC-14E2 teleconverter and extend it's range and (2) the new tripod mounting piece is not only extremely TRICK but also removable, which is fantastic for hand-held shooting.
Anyone who has only used kit-type lenses and slower zooms will be blown away in every way by this fantastic lens.
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2006
|
|
PILLMAN
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,514.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Was waiting and waiting and waiting for the 18-200 -- of course still waiting.... Then deciding between new glass and a new camera. . Feel glass if more important than the camera. Therefore, I chose glass...and I chose the best Im told.. Just received.. hurricane weekend here and can't wait to get outdoors and try it out... Fall around corner...
|
|
Cons:
|
Im sure none. will post later.. (expensive, yet you get what you pay for Im told )
|
|
|
coming...
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2006
|
|
rocklobster
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Jul 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This lens put on same BIG TIME THE 80-200.
I have no words for this lens i like it a lot this is my new baby.
|
|
Cons:
|
toooooooooo sharp lollll
|
|
|
This is one of the best thing of my life is easy to use is SUPER FAST AND LOOKS SEXY LOLLLLLLL
Get this lens if you have the money and do not listen others or listen storys about the old crappy 80-200.
You may save money with the 80-200 BUT it is not the same quality NOT even near.
OHHHHH god i am in heaven with this lens.
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2006
|
|
Remy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 177
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, autofocus speed and accuracy, contrast, build quality, lens hood, filter size, VR
|
|
Cons:
|
These are small compared to the pros: weight needs getting used to, the price is a bit high compared to some competition. Minimum focus distance is also a minor quirk (1,5meter in AF, 1,4 in MF mode).
|
|
|
Bought the 70-200 a few weeks ago after debating which lens to get: a Sigma APO 70-300, a Sigma 70-200, a Nikkor 80-200 AF-S..etcetera. I decided to go with 'the best' right away: I've seen more than enough upgrade-paths around me and would not want to do the same. Get it right, right away.
The lens is definitely one of the best Nikkor-zooms: very well built, stellar optics, great AF-S, great VR with horizontal panning detection and active mode, the list goes on.
The few downsides are small (see pros and cons): if you don't have a telezoom yet or are looking to upgrade: definitely look at this one despite its hefty pricetag.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2006
|
|
thebeephaha
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1814
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, VR usefulness, sharpness wide open, focusing speed, less weight than the 80-200 AF-S.
|
|
Cons:
|
Its really long in physical size compaired to its older brothers (80-200 AF-D, 80-200 AF-S), VR takes some getting used to.
|
|
|
I have gotten tack sharp shots at 1/20th of a second with this lens when it is in it's "Active" mode. It's absolutely great, sadly I've not had a chance to try shooting any sports with it yet, but I'm sure it won't let me down.
|
|
|
May 28, 2006
|
|
Grognard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2140
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Its sharp, and well made.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, expensive
|
|
|
Just got it today, and I took some photographs with it that are nice and sharp. Focus is blazingly fast. Too bloody expensive though!
|
|
|
May 19, 2006
|
|
hajagee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Bokeh! Tack sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight. A drain on camera battery
|
|
|
Have been using this for a year. Was a newbie when I started and this lens thought me the meaning of bokeh. It's still my favourite lens. Made me invest in a more comfortable neckstrap, too.
|
|
|
May 5, 2006
|
|
faizal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Ergonomics, sharp, bokeh is awesome!!, VR, built quality
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive? you get what you paid for,
|
|
Bought this lens after using Sigma 70-200/2.8 for a few months. The Sigma was a good lens but there was something missing.
Finally bought the Nikon. The bokeh is beautiful. Even with 1.4x KENKO teleconverter, the images are still very much usable.
Used the lens to shoot motorsports, weddings, stage concerts/theater and other. VR really works like a charm for low light shooting.
Check out here! http://www.pbase.com/afaizal
Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2006
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7012
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, f2.8.... I could go on and on
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I never owned a lens like this before. I had some kick butt Canon lenses when I was a Canon guy, but nothing like this. Now I know why everyone at Canon wanted a 70-200 f2.8 IS, well I always used a 70-200 f2.8 and now I got my VR. Man, I did not know what I was missing until now. I just shot a wedding and was able to handhold a shot all the ways down to 1/30 at 200mm and a 1.4x tele on it.
Man is this lens awesome.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
pik2004
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It's an excellent and very sharp. VR works very well. ultra fast focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
I want to carry this lens with everywhere, butit's bit too large (as any other 2.8 lens).
no aperature ring.
|
|
|
I owned this lens for about 5 months now and I love the way it works; smooth, sharp, and fast. without a doubt it's my favorite and best lens (ofcourse price has something to with it too).
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2005
|
|
Virgil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
speed, sharpness, handling, VR works like magic
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive
|
|
|
I achived great results with my former 70-300G tele-lens. But the first time i used the 70-200VR i saw how much easier i could have achived my shots in comparison. This lens is sharp, easy to use and very fast. VR works as advertised. Itīs simply a great lens.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
95
|
228436
|
Nov 12, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$1,625.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.86
|
8.56
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
