your opinion wanted [lens purchase advice]

[Meister]

I have the opportunity to buy the Nikkor 70-200 2.8g ed vr I for 870€ used in very good condition To use it on my D610.

I want your opinion on this.

 

[MCAsan]

For a 35mm DSLR, 24-70 and 70-200 zooms at f2.8 are classic lenses to own. I don't know the particulars of Nikon (former Canoneer that moved to M43); however, if the glass is in good shape, any VR works, the lenses focuses on your body, and the price is low for your area.....it might be a good deal. I would want to try it before handing over the money. 😉

 

[fa8362]

I bought that lens new many years ago. It made high quality images, but I sold it because it was too large and heavy, and it attracted too much attention. Basically, it wasn't for me.

 

[compuwar]

The VRII was updated to address the full-frame shortcommings of the VRI, so I'd be hesitant to recommend the VRI to a FF shooter- however, if a VRII isn't anywhere near your budget, the VRI at least outperformed the Sigma (and had much less QC issues) two years ago. The VRI also has some ghosting issues at max zoom, wide open with a TC17EII, in that case, I'd probably take a hit on sharpness and go with the Sigma just to not have to remember to change settings or zoom slightly if I were going to use that combination frequently.

If you're shooting events for money, then the VRII is the right answer, even if you have to rent and/or save up more. If you're shooting for fun, then you need to see what the local prices are in your area and/or online for a used lens. In the US, I generally compare prices/conditions to KEH (www.keh.com) where the VR in EX goes for ~$1200-1480 and the VRII in LN- is ~$2100-2150. Over the 10-15 year life of the lens, I'd get the VRII given the price difference is ~$70/year. Your pricing is aligned with KEH.

Paul

 

[nburwell]

You have to ask yourself what you're instending to use the lens for? What do you generally shoot? Do you see yourself using this lens frequently? Or is it going to sit in in your bag?

Being a landscape/cityscape shooter, I tend to shoot wide often than long. If you shoot sports or birds, then this is a lens that will probably get some use.

So yes, it certainly could be a good deal for you, but you have to ask yourself what you intend to use the lens for.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I'd have thought a 70-200 is a bit short on a FF body for sports or wildlife. What are you shooting most OP? Just make sure you really need this focal length before shelling out.

 

[Cheese&Apple]

I bought the VRII version for $2000 CDN + tax = $2260 (1485€) and use it on a D600. I've never used the VRI so I can't compare.

I will say the 70-200mm 2.8 VRII is an awesome lens and is probably my favourite. It's fast and super sharp. It's a great lens for events and people shots in general…200mm gives you the length to be unobtrusive and get those nice candid shots. Of course, 2.8 with any VR is good for low light.

870€ sounds like a good buy to me.

Edit: You could also consider a new 70-200 f/4.0 VR for around 870€. I haven't used it but it gets great reviews and of course, it would be under warranty. It all depends on your needs.

~ Peter

 

[ChrisA]

I have the opportunity to buy the Nikkor 70-200 2.8g ed vr I for 870€ used in very good condition To use it on my D610.

I want your opinion on this.

It all depends on what you intend to use the lens for. The price seems fair and it's a nice lens but do you need this. The lens is VERY large. It is a classic lens for sports if you are on the sidelines. I've seen wedding photographers use this lens at times when they unable to get close, during the ceremony. But it is always better to walk up close if that is adoption.

The way to know if you need it is to think of photos that you have not been able to get with your current system.

No one here can say if this lens is what you need

 

[swordio777]

For €870, I think that's a bargain. I have the 70-200 VR1 - it's a phenomenal lens. I use the lens mainly for weddings, but it's also great for portraits. It focusses very quickly, is unbelievably sharp, even wide open, and has a beautiful bokeh.

Before making the purchase I did wonder if I should save my money to put towards the VR2. But that question disappeared as soon as I took my first shot with the VR1. I see no reason at all to upgrade, and if mine died I'd search out another used VR1.

As others have said though - it all depends what you'll use the lens for. If you mainly shoot landscape then forget it. But if you shoot people then I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Do bear in mind it's HEAVY! I work with two D700 bodies. This lens will be on one of those bodies for most of the day, and believe me, after carrying it for a few hours you're definitely gonna know about it.

Hope that helps.

Iain

 

[Meister]

Thank you for all the helpfull comments. The question what I would use the lens for is a good one.

I am pretty much set with my little prime collection from 85mm downward.
Recently i aquired a 70-300 zoom and I was thinking about extending to sports and wildlife.
It was mostly the price that tainted me. I was mistaken and it is in fact 1070€.
I checked out the lens at the store down the road and its humongous.
Almost felt its gonna break the camera dangling down from my hip.
The 2.8 seems somewhat slow to me. I am aware that that comes with the zoom territory.

Also 200mm and even 300mm is very short for shooting the fury creatures.
Wildlife photography seems very very expensive.

The bottom line is that I didnt feel that this lens was a worthy investment for me.
If I would shoot mainly sports I would think about it again.

 

[compuwar]

Also 200mm and even 300mm is very short for shooting the fury creatures.
Wildlife photography seems very very expensive.

The bottom line is that I didnt feel that this lens was a worthy investment for me.
If I would shoot mainly sports I would think about it again.

For indoor sports, 200mm may be enough- for most outdoor sports, including motorsports, a 300/2.8 is the go-to lens. For wildlife, a 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 is the way to go, often with a teleconverter. Fortunately, the latest Nikon 2x TC (20E-III) is optically good enough for publishable results. Unfortunately, sometimes even an 800mm f/5.6 isn't enough lens...

There are often areas where the wildlife has become accustomed to people enough to allow close approach and where the wildlife may be active during bright daylight where one of the slower n-400mm or n-500mm zooms will get you enough images often enough to shoot.

Paul

 

[Razeus]

I don't understand your question.

Are you about to purchase a lens you haven't a clue what your use for it would be?

Or are you asking if the VRI is a good lens for your D610? If you can't afford the VRII, then no. Get the f/4 version of the 70-200. I can't recommend the VRI with those two lenses available. I'd recommend the 80-200 before I'd recommend the VRI.

 

[Meister]

I don't understand your question.
Are you about to purchase a lens you haven't a clue what your use for it would be?
Or are you asking if the VRI is a good lens for your D610? If you can't afford the VRII, then no. Get the f/4 version of the 70-200. I can't recommend the VRI with those two lenses available. I'd recommend the 80-200 before I'd recommend the VRI.

Use for it😛ortraits, wildlife, sports, general zoom and maybe resale.
Thank you for your advice, but I decided against it.
Because:
- 200mm is too short for wildife (normally)
- the lens now costs 200 more
- I tested out the lens and was not overwhelmed
- the VRII or for my purposes the 80-400 would be preferable

 

[MiniD3]

On FX, I would go for the VRII

On DX, VRI performs OK,
The other option, (depending on budget), is to get the 70-200 f4, light to carry, performs as good as the 2.8 VRII,
A lot have sold their 2.8 and going the f4, unless you are constantly shooting action in very low light, the f4 is your best option, and, without loosing any IQ

Now for the bad news, you have to buy the collar 🙂
....Gary