I had the opportunity, years ago, to purchase the 70-200 VR1 when Calumet had a credit special where you could start paying six months later. I did not like the feel of the lens, so I got an F6 instead. I eventually sold it for a lack of use. I am wondering, does the weight of the 70-200 F2.8 VR lens "tear up the lens mount" as I have heard it said?
ct8282 wrote:
Puff puff give my friend. I'm seconds on that when you work out what he's smoking!
I can hand hold the 70-200f2.8 all day on my D4 (which is a heavy camera) without any aches whatsoever. Put the 200f2 on the D4 and I have around 10 mins before the ache sets in.
I think he's trolling or dreaming.
oh come on you guys.. when you're lifting the 200/2, you're more pumped up. The 70-200 is like doing yoga with the girls
I found myself using the 200mm end of 70-200mm zooms 95% of the time, so I end up with nikon 180mm f/2.8. Much lighter, cheaper & compact. No VR though, but no regrets.
May 17, 2013 at 02:21 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I have not read the whole thread, but to the OP and your original post, it's all in what you shoot. The 70-200 is what I call the "back-yard event lens". It's perfect for actions and activity that occur in the space of 100ft x 100ft back yard ... maybe a 150 x 150 ... but you get the point. It's not long enough for sports or wildlife that is at normal distances, and too long for most indoor stuff, especially on DX which is what I shoot.
But, it excels at outdoor people events where you can mingle and it's great for portraits and kids playing in the yard.
Two other uses I find for the 70-200 are landscapes (usually buildings and such from a distance) and close-ups with a Canon 500D filter when I don't want to carry a true macro lens.
I traded mine for the f/4 which I now use way more often. Much lighter and it's just as sharp. I don't miss the f/2.8, partially because I also have the 200/2.
I had the older 80-200 f/2.8 (which is lighter than the newer 70-200 f/2.8 lenses IIRC), and constantly went through a "take it or leave it" decision process due to its weight and size. I got the 70-200 f/4 recently, and it is pretty much a fixture in my bag unless I'm going bare minimum (which is usually the 35 f/1.8 and either the 18-200 VRII or Tammy 28-75 f/2.8).
Used to have the VR 1, sold it partly becuase of its size and weight. I already have the 85 1.4 D so while the quality is good, it wasn't really "amazing" to me... sold it after getting the 70-300 VR.
I have 85 1.4, ZF 100 f2 and AIS 180 2.8 ED, so that 70-200 range basically covered (but no VR and 2 of them are MF lens)... and they are faster too (except the 180).
If I am buying another big lens, it might be even bigger maybe the 120-300 OS
Why? becuase 70-200 isn't really a fast lens. While I usually use shorter lens, but when I need a long lens, 200 isn't long enough..
BUT if I 'm a pro event shooter I'd probably have a 70-200 VR in the bag.
