p.2 #1 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
nope, not I. If one is made, it may be optically improved a little, but the additional cost for a new one could be $500 or so...factor in selling your old 70-200 and the hit you'd take especially if you bought it new, and you may be looking at almost a $1000 or so added cost for a new 70-200...no thanks!
p.2 #2 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
How many D3X owners do you know
Not counting the folks here at FM, well, none! My friends shoot (painful to type...) Canon! Now you have me wondering how many D3x shooters are out there. I know of at least 4 here at FM, but that's about it. But gosh darn it, I bet they all want a better 70-200!
p.2 #5 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
I guess I'm aiming the question primarily at those that feel the need to have the latest and greatest, whether or not it's been announced yet or not
Do you feel the need to have the latest and greatest ?
If so you've already got your answer, and if not, then we'll you've got your answer what to do as well.
Some people are always going to want the latest and greatest but does that mean everyone else should follow suit ?
I know guys who had a D3, loved it, and bought a D3x day it was in stock. More power to them and it must be nice to drop $8k like that, I'd love one if I could afford it.
However, I can't see why it would matter what someone else does
If some other guys bought D3x does that make me any less happy with my D3 ?
Theres not a doubt in my mind that some people will buy a new 70-200 if/when it comes out.
Those same people will also buy a new D700x and/or any other "latest and greatest" gear going.
Its a darn expensive and never ending job trying to keep up with the "jones" of the photo world.
I wouldnt even try, I'd rather just buy what works for you right now and what you can afford
p.2 #7 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
millsart wrote:
Do you feel the need to have the latest and greatest ?
If so you've already got your answer, and if not, then we'll you've got your answer what to do as well.
Some people are always going to want the latest and greatest but does that mean everyone else should follow suit ?
I know guys who had a D3, loved it, and bought a D3x day it was in stock. More power to them and it must be nice to drop $8k like that, I'd love one if I could afford it.
However, I can't see why it would matter what someone else does
If some other guys bought D3x does that make me any less happy with my D3 ?
Theres not a doubt in my mind that some people will buy a new 70-200 if/when it comes out.
Those same people will also buy a new D700x and/or any other "latest and greatest" gear going.
Its a darn expensive and never ending job trying to keep up with the "jones" of the photo world.
I wouldnt even try, I'd rather just buy what works for you right now and what you can afford...Show more →
You can call it keeping up with the photographic Joneses if you like, but the truth is, for MY application, soft corners don't cut it. If the current 70-200 was good as is, then there's no reason to upgrade, but I think in this case there's a few of us shooing landscapes (95% of what I personally use this for is landscapes) that would appreciate our corners a little less smeary. Makes stitching a little easier too.
Truth is, for a landscape application, the lens in its current state is unacceptable to me. After using the incredible 24-70, 14-24, 500vr, etc, the 70-200 is a bit of a letdown. It's screaming for an update as far as I'm concerned.
Now, if I was doing sports, portraits, etc with it (heck, even wildlife), I would be just fine with the current lens. In most of those applications, it simply doesn't matter if your corners are sharp or not.
p.2 #10 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Steve Perry wrote:
You can call it keeping up with the photographic Joneses if you like, but the truth is, for MY application, soft corners don't cut it. If the current 70-200 was good as is, then there's no reason to upgrade, but I think in this case there's a few of us shooing landscapes (95% of what I personally use this for is landscapes) that would appreciate our corners a little less smeary. Makes stitching a little easier too.
Truth is, for a landscape application, the lens in its current state is unacceptable to me. After using the incredible 24-70, 14-24, 500vr, etc, the 70-200 is a bit of a letdown. It's screaming for an update as far as I'm concerned.
Now, if I was doing sports, portraits, etc with it (heck, even wildlife), I would be just fine with the current lens. In most of those applications, it simply doesn't matter if your corners are sharp or not.
Why do you want to haul around a large heavy 70-200 for landscape shooting though when theres the excellent 70-300 VR thats under half the weight, better optically and availible right now ?
You are right the 70-200 isn't great in the corners, especially full frame, but the 70-300 is very good across the entire frame. Stop it down to f8 and its as good as anything on the market.
Just a really fantastic lens for the money and ideal for landscapes. I'd suggest you give it a try, might make you no longer want updated 70-200 2.8
p.2 #13 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
millsart wrote:
Why do you want to haul around a large heavy 70-200 for landscape shooting though when theres the excellent 70-300 VR thats under half the weight, better optically and availible right now ?
You are right the 70-200 isn't great in the corners, especially full frame, but the 70-300 is very good across the entire frame. Stop it down to f8 and its as good as anything on the market.
Just a really fantastic lens for the money and ideal for landscapes. I'd suggest you give it a try, might make you no longer want updated 70-200 2.8
I generally shoot with a polarizer, and in low light conditions. While I don't need a 2.8 lens for speed, I like the fact that it keeps my viewfinder nice and bright.
However, that said, I have to admit I keep thinking about getting a 70-300. I generally shoot at F/8 or smaller, and if it's as good as the 70-200, you're right - it might just save me some big bucks. I have a trip coming up soon, maybe I'll rent one and give it a try.
p.2 #14 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
It depends on the price and other improvements Nikon makes to the lens. The corner issue is real, but it hasn't hurt me yet (sports, seniors, weddings). The lens is so clean in the middle, it can handle a 1.4 tc for most of my work, so just fixing the corners is not enough.
p.2 #15 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
How do you deal with atmospheric distortion and haze with long telephoto landscapes?
I've rarely used long tele for landscapes and I've rarely heard of people doing that, until the d3 and the issues that brought with the complaints on the 70-200vr. Prior to that, all of the complaints were that DX didn't have any real wide angles......
p.2 #16 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
How do you deal with atmospheric distortion and haze with long telephoto landscapes?
I've rarely used long tele for landscapes and I've rarely heard of people doing that, until the d3 and the issues that brought with the complaints on the 70-200vr. Prior to that, all of the complaints were that DX didn't have any real wide angles......
Kerry, more than half of my landscape shots were 85mm,135mm and 200mm. Some of them were sold for use in travel related magazines and highway billboards along the Central California coastline. For me, telephoto compression makes some shots work better. But maybe that's just me.
Marc
Jul 22, 2009 at 09:01 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
How do you deal with atmospheric distortion and haze with long telephoto landscapes?
I've rarely used long tele for landscapes and I've rarely heard of people doing that, until the d3 and the issues that brought with the complaints on the 70-200vr. Prior to that, all of the complaints were that DX didn't have any real wide angles......
Some of my most interesting landscape shots were done with my 70-200, and often at 200mm. Time of day and weather conditions play a role, but often things are not as far as you would think, even at 200mm. But, the vignetting issue of the 70-200 of FX should not be one for landscapes as you are generally shooting f/8 to f/16 for these kinds of shots.
p.2 #18 · Will you upgrade to the new 70-200vr when and if it comes out?
Kerry Pierce wrote:
How do you deal with atmospheric distortion and haze with long telephoto landscapes?
I've rarely used long tele for landscapes and I've rarely heard of people doing that, until the d3 and the issues that brought with the complaints on the 70-200vr. Prior to that, all of the complaints were that DX didn't have any real wide angles......
I don't use my lens for landscapes often, but when you need it, you need it. Not all landscapes are shot at distant subjects. Sometimes compression and a little more intimate feeling work too.
