AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED

[koayst]

Hi,

Needs opinion on this lens.

Worth buying it now since the len was released in 2003. At least 3 years ago and still quite expensive.

Will be any improvements like VR II?

Thanks.

[TMC]

any minor improvements will not be stated. prob all VRII by now.

[ihub88]

Originally Posted by koayst Hi, Needs opinion on this lens. Worth buying it now since the len was released in 2003. At least 3 years ago and still quite expensive. Will be any improvements like VR II? Thanks.

do you need the lens now?

thats the most important question.

later u buy liaoz comes out with Nano coating, VRII and etc.

[Ansel]

This lens is already so good, just get it if you need it. No need to wait for further improvements because frankly, none needed, other than for those die-die-must-have-aperture-ring type, then they will say they want the aperture ring.

[Optodexine]

seriously doubt that there will be a new version. I think the pro community is perfectly happy with this model and there is very little need for them to produce a new version anytime soon. That said however, if u notice the thrend of this lens (the 70-200 range) typically nikon will update it every 4 years. So there should be a new version in 1-2 years time. Y dun u get a second hand one instead? If you dun need the VR get the sigma 70 - 200 instead. It is equally good.

I own the 70-200 vr and it is an excellent lens but not something for holiday shoots. It is way too bulky.

[koayst]

Originally Posted by Optodexine seriously doubt that there will be a new version. I think the pro community is perfectly happy with this model and there is very little need for them to produce a new version anytime soon. That said however, if u notice the thrend of this lens (the 70-200 range) typically nikon will update it every 4 years. So there should be a new version in 1-2 years time. Y dun u get a second hand one instead? If you dun need the VR get the sigma 70 - 200 instead. It is equally good. I own the 70-200 vr and it is an excellent lens but not something for holiday shoots. It is way too bulky.

I heard sigma 70 - 200 not so good. Have you tried it yourself?

Also the price is also the same as Nikoor 80 - 200mm.

I asked last week. From Lord's

Nikkor 70 - 200mm VR -> S$2750
Nikkor 80 - 200mm -> S$1650
Sigma 70 - 200mm -> S$1650


Regards,
Seng Tian

[Lmodel]

You can get the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR at a much cheaper price.

Look Here for the pricing. In case you dunno, it comes with a 1yr international warranty as well so you can bring it to NSC if there is any fault with it within one yr of purchase.

Alternatively, you can always for one in the B&S. Usually at a very good price!

[Optodexine]

The new sigma 70 200 macro is very good. Buildwise and quality too. And you can go much closer to your subject than the 80 200 or 70 200. Optically it is even better than 70 200 vr.

And you can get it from oriental photo @ sim lim.

[ihub88]

Originally Posted by Optodexine The new sigma 70 200 macro is very good. Buildwise and quality too. And you can go much closer to your subject than the 80 200 or 70 200. Optically it is even better than 70 200 vr. And you can get it from oriental photo @ sim lim.

that sigma lens so good? so i should go for sigma or nikon in this case?

[camelot88]

Originally Posted by Optodexine The new sigma 70 200 macro is very good. Buildwise and quality too. And you can go much closer to your subject than the 80 200 or 70 200. Optically it is even better than 70 200 vr. And you can get it from oriental photo @ sim lim.

The Sigma is optically better? Is this your subjective thought or have you read this somewhere?

[Lmodel]

Originally Posted by Optodexine The new sigma 70 200 macro is very good. Buildwise and quality too. And you can go much closer to your subject than the 80 200 or 70 200. Optically it is even better than 70 200 vr. And you can get it from oriental photo @ sim lim.

The Nikkor 80-200 and Nikkor 70-200 is not meant for Macro. Also, if it is meant to be a zoom lens, why the need to go close to the subject when I can use the zoom.

As for that it is optically better than the Nikkor 70-200, perhaps you can show us some comparison of it.

Btw, will the new sigma coating peel off after some time?

[David Chin]

I thought most of the equipment enters Singapore duty free. Why is it that lenses and filters cost so much more in Singapore compared to places like Hongkong and Taiwan (imported stuff is subject to stiff taxes in Taiwan). The last time I checked the price of the Nikkor 70-200 zoom, I was quoted NT$49,500 or slightly under S$2,300. By the way, the lens comes with a one-year international warranty.

I suspect Nikon has marked up the prices locally or the local dealers are making much better profit compared to dealers in Hongkong or Taiwan. The poor consumers suffer.

[TMC]

somewhere along the line, someone cocked up.

[ernest_ted]

Originally Posted by TMC somewhere along the line, someone cocked up.

[fv18m]

From what I recall many years back, actually, close to 90% is duty free - you can safely assume that you daily NECESSESITIES are duty free. So anything that falls out from that category will most probably be classified as a Luxury good, and that would mean they go to "Heaven" - Tax Heaven...

[Optodexine]

Quoted this from the Nikonian forums:

"""""According to a recent test of 'Foto Magazin' in Germany, the optical quality (sharpness/CA/distortion) of 70-200 f2.8 lenses can be ranked as follows:
1. Sigma 70-200 DG version
2. Nikkor 70-200 VR
3. Nikkor 80-200
4. Sigma 70-200 non DG version (more or less equiv to Nikkor 80-200)

The NEW Sigma seriously outperforms the Nikkor on a DX sensor, NOT on film !!! of course without VR.
Moreover, mechanically speaking, the Nikkor VR version is a winner and outperforms by far all the rest.

You also have to know that ALL those lenses are ranked in the category "excellent", very recommendable.

So my conclusion would be: go for the NEW Sigma, not the old one
if money is an issue, otherwise, the Nikkor VR version is an incredible lens because of the added value of the VR (and the best invesment probably because of build quality).

Just another info: results are also copy-dependent: I did very extensive tests of my 70-200 Sigma (non-DG) compared to a Nikkor 80-200 (thanks to a colleague of mine) and my Sigma was much better fully open (the Nikkor was a bit soft @2.8). So my copy is probably above average and his was below average ? But again we are talking about very good lenses in both cases...

Guy Van Hooveld"""""


And I have seen this article form the with the full comparison just that I lost the link so I cannot share with you guys, but I have used the sigma 70 200 DG Macro and it does focus very quickly and the 'macro" function is useful as the minimum focus distance has been reduced greatly. Meaning Nikkor 70 200 VR u need to stand at least 1.5 meters away from the subject to shoot. For any reason if your subject is any nearer it cannot focus. For example if 1 of my subjects approach too close to the lens you need to step back. The Sigma 70 200 macro is not a dedicated macro lens and will not replace good macro lens but what it is good at is its minimum focusing distance is reduced to 0.7m or so and you can go alot closer to your subject with it. Think of it as a zoom lens that can go closer to your subject, not as a macro lens that can zoom.

And I have used the sigma EX Lenses before and the coating does peel off very easily with regular use. Especially around the tripod mount area.

The Nikkor 80-200 and Nikkor 70-200 is not meant for Macro. Also, if it is meant to be a zoom lens, why the need to go close to the subject when I can use the zoom.

Anyway to get a best feel of what you prefer, go try out the lens yourself. I tried all of them and felt that I cannot do without VR so I got the 70-200 vr.

[ihub88]

Originally Posted by Optodexine Quoted this from the Nikonian forums: """""According to a recent test of 'Foto Magazin' in Germany, the optical quality (sharpness/CA/distortion) of 70-200 f2.8 lenses can be ranked as follows: 1. Sigma 70-200 DG version 2. Nikkor 70-200 VR 3. Nikkor 80-200 4. Sigma 70-200 non DG version (more or less equiv to Nikkor 80-200) The NEW Sigma seriously outperforms the Nikkor on a DX sensor, NOT on film !!! of course without VR. Moreover, mechanically speaking, the Nikkor VR version is a winner and outperforms by far all the rest. You also have to know that ALL those lenses are ranked in the category "excellent", very recommendable. So my conclusion would be: go for the NEW Sigma, not the old one if money is an issue, otherwise, the Nikkor VR version is an incredible lens because of the added value of the VR (and the best invesment probably because of build quality). Just another info: results are also copy-dependent: I did very extensive tests of my 70-200 Sigma (non-DG) compared to a Nikkor 80-200 (thanks to a colleague of mine) and my Sigma was much better fully open (the Nikkor was a bit soft @2.8). So my copy is probably above average and his was below average ? But again we are talking about very good lenses in both cases... Guy Van Hooveld""""" And I have seen this article form the with the full comparison just that I lost the link so I cannot share with you guys, but I have used the sigma 70 200 DG Macro and it does focus very quickly and the 'macro" function is useful as the minimum focus distance has been reduced greatly. Meaning Nikkor 70 200 VR u need to stand at least 1.5 meters away from the subject to shoot. For any reason if your subject is any nearer it cannot focus. For example if 1 of my subjects approach too close to the lens you need to step back. The Sigma 70 200 macro is not a dedicated macro lens and will not replace good macro lens but what it is good at is its minimum focusing distance is reduced to 0.7m or so and you can go alot closer to your subject with it. Think of it as a zoom lens that can go closer to your subject, not as a macro lens that can zoom. And I have used the sigma EX Lenses before and the coating does peel off very easily with regular use. Especially around the tripod mount area. The Nikkor 80-200 and Nikkor 70-200 is not meant for Macro. Also, if it is meant to be a zoom lens, why the need to go close to the subject when I can use the zoom. Anyway to get a best feel of what you prefer, go try out the lens yourself. I tried all of them and felt that I cannot do without VR so I got the 70-200 vr.

so i can conclude from here is to hell with the 70-200vr and get the sigma one.

i dun want to waste money to buy a lousy lens.

[ryuggen]

Originally Posted by ihub88 so i can conclude from here is to hell with the 70-200vr and get the sigma one. i dun want to waste money to buy a lousy lens.

You should probably be asking yourself, if VR is important for your need.

[ihub88]

Originally Posted by ryuggen You should probably be asking yourself, if VR is important for your need.

i dun have stable hands, ya, got VR better

but people here say the VR lens is lousier then the sigma lens. how?

[Lmodel]

Originally Posted by ihub88 so i can conclude from here is to hell with the 70-200vr and get the sigma one. i dun want to waste money to buy a lousy lens.

I'd say dun put it down too early. The best bet is to go test the lens for yourself.

I don't think anyone would say the 70-200 VR is a lousy lens. Firstly, the test results is not by a panel of members and could be subjective.

Secondly, it is mentioned that there could be lemon copies (not saying that there is none for Nikon).

Thirdly, I'm not too sure how useful is the macro function for this telezoom lens. At 0.7m focusing distance and at 70mm, perhaps you can only capture half the face?

Lastly, you gotta try for yourself if VR is useful to you at 200mm.

Btw, got to make it clear that Optodexine did not once mentioned that the Nikkor 70-200mm VR is a lousy lens. You did.

Cheers