BSPhotog wrote:
That is my understanding as well, and the reason that I own the VR I instead of the II.
I remember these versions being announced. Recall that VR (I) was released before Nikon had a FF DSLR, was sixteen years late to the party versus the EF 200/1.8L and was a third-stop slower to boot. That might explain its very attractive intro price of $3300 or so. The VR (II) came after Nikon had kicked Canon's butt in the sensor wars and could confidently boost the price by well over a grand. I always thought the reissue was a cash grab—no meaningful improvement to the product.
rico wrote:
I remember these versions being announced. Recall that VR (I) was released before Nikon had a FF DSLR, was sixteen years late to the party versus the EF 200/1.8L and was a third-stop slower to boot. That might explain its very attractive intro price of $3300 or so. The VR (II) came after Nikon had kicked Canon's butt in the sensor wars and could confidently boost the price by well over a grand. I always thought the reissue was a cash grab—no meaningful improvement to the product.
Do you have some shoot to share with me. Some backlight ones please!!
After long debating with myself if to go for a used Chubby or a 300 2.8 VR, I've chosen the first one, as I like to do outdoor portraiture more than wildlife/sports so I feel that Mr. Chub could be a better option for me (and can always slap a 1.4x on it and get almost the same results of the 300).
Not needing the nanocoating that much, how much do you think a used vI in good conditions could fetch as a fair price? Just to have a reference, thank you
I’m seeing VRII’s for $3,500-$4,000 at the moment... and VRI’s for $2,500-$3,500.
Be careful with the VRI focus motor. Like many early AFS lenses it can get afs squeak which means the motor is about to die.
Tirpitz666 wrote:
After long debating with myself if to go for a used Chubby or a 300 2.8 VR, I've chosen the first one, as I like to do outdoor portraiture more than wildlife/sports so I feel that Mr. Chub could be a better option for me (and can always slap a 1.4x on it and get almost the same results of the 300).
Not needing the nanocoating that much, how much do you think a used vI in good conditions could fetch as a fair price? Just to have a reference, thank you
Yeah thank you, had my fair share of "squeaking issues" in the past, having bought numerous "vintage" AF-S lenses..
Luckily it seems that they are still being repaired, if the worst should happen down the line, definitely do not want to remain with a Chubby paperweight...
So guess I should treat it like a dog if I find one, a daily stroll in the park with at least a couple of leaks (i.e. shots)
P.S. how about usage with TCs? better to stick to the TC 14E only (guess the vII should do, since it's not a super recent lens?) or even the TC 17E II and the TC 20E III are viable solutions? Any preference among the last two ?
Look back in this thread... TC use was recently discussed by me and others in this thread... goodluck!
Tirpitz666 wrote:
So guess I should treat it like a dog if I find one, a daily stroll in the park with at least a couple of leaks (i.e. shots)
P.S. how about usage with TCs? better to stick to the TC 14E only (guess the vII should do, since it's not a super recent lens?) or even the TC 17E II and the TC 20E III are viable solutions? Any preference among the last two ?
Thank you, read it and it is pretty useful indeed, and while I have no doubt that be best possible IQ would be achievable with the TC14Es (but not that much increase in magnification), it's not clear if for the longer options the best results can be obtained with the TC-17EII+cropping or with the TC20EIII directly.
What it looks to me having read quite a bit about the lens, is that it takes all types of recent Nikon TCs pretty well (wonder how it behaves with the best Kenkos, which are usually pretty good for the price).
P.S. I already have two oldish Tamron SP 1.4x PRO and a Sigma 2x EX DG APO, but I doubt any of them will work with the Chub
Me personally, I'd stick with the latest Nikon TC's on a $3/$5k lens. If memory serves/my own experience was the TC14/17 cropped are almost identical in sharpness to the TC20 (uncropped). I hate the idea of "cropping later" so I'd shoot the TC for the focal length you want. If you use the latest of each TC, the 200mm plays wonderfully well with them and is incredibly fast focusing.
Tirpitz666 wrote:
Thank you, read it and it is pretty useful indeed, and while I have no doubt that be best possible IQ would be achievable with the TC14Es (but not that much increase in magnification), it's not clear if for the longer options the best results can be obtained with the TC-17EII+cropping or with the TC20EIII directly.
What it looks to me having read quite a bit about the lens, is that it takes all types of recent Nikon TCs pretty well (wonder how it behaves with the best Kenkos, which are usually pretty good for the price).
P.S. I already have two oldish Tamron SP 1.4x PRO and a Sigma 2x EX DG APO, but I doubt any of them will work with the Chub...Show more →
Thank you, I agree that it would make little sense to skimp on the TC on such a "noble" glass, just read somewhere (guess it was Photographylife) that for example the TC-14EIII is really worth it for the newest lenses, while on a bit older design like this one you can basically have the same results by sticking to the vII version or the TC-17E. Different story for the TC-20EIII, which is reportedly appreciably better than the TC-20EII.
This seems indeed one of the few lenses around for which a good 2X TC is "not too much", so it could be an actual option vs the two shorter ones.
From my last photoshoot
The chubby has become my first lens in every sesion. It worth every peny. It's a little soft focus on the eyes but still loving it.
