Nikon 70-200 VR Arrived: First Impressions

[sabbath999]

My new 2.8 70-200 VR arrived today. I was out of town, and it was after sunset before I got it out of the box... I did take it around and shot a few photos, to at least get a feel for it.

Focusing is quick, even in near darkness. The VR works pretty well (as far as I could tell), and it is sharp. I will post a few pictures in a bit when I get a chance to resize them, and more when I get a chance to shoot it when there is actual daylight.

Here is one real quick... moonrise over St. Joseph's Church, shot handheld. This is basically right out of the camera, resized in photoshop. One or two more to come after dinner...

ADDED LAter: EXIF Summary: 1/25s f/11.0 ISO160 130mm (35mm eq:195mm)

 

[sabbath999]

A bit later, here are three geese that flew through the sky... lucky they were flying into a huge headwind, so they were not going very fast. It was getting pretty dark, so they are fairly noisy but I was able to still able to freeze their wings (mostly). The moon was blown out a bit so I burned it in with a bit of post.

ADDED LATER:

EXIF Summary: 1/400s f/2.8 ISO400 200mm (35mm eq:300mm)

 

[Buszaj]

Wow, those are really nice pictures, I like the colours in the first one, and the wildlife part of the second one. It seems to me though that in the second one the seas on the moon could have been sharper, no?

 

[kundalini]

Congrats on the arrival. The first two shots like very nice.

Did you shoot wide open? And at what shutter speed?

 

[sabbath999]

EXIF data added.

The moon isn't sharp because it is on a different focal plane than the birds, and I was panning as well... that's a guess. I don't know the lens at all.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

How does it balance on the D80?

I ask because my 80-200 f/2.8 is like a 20lb rock on my D70.

 

[sabbath999]

Everybody always talks about how heavy the 70-200's are (and the 80-200's for that matter).

The 70-200 weighs in at 51 ounces (with the foot on it) and the 80-200 weighs in at 46. They are both about 3 1/2 inches across and the 70-200 is an inch longer.

After hearing people complaining about how big and heavy these lenses were, I was a little worried... but I can tell you after a short bit of use, this thing is a walk in the park compared to lugging around a Sigma 50-500 (BigMa).

It feels balanced well in my hands. Ergo wise, I LOVE the focus lock switches at the end of the lens on each side... VERY handy...

I shot it without a battery grip on the camera (I don't own one) and it felt very good in my hands. Then again, I may be just happy to have it better handling than my 4+pound BigMa with its long barrel that cranks out all the way to China.

Another nice handling feature of the 70-200 is that the foot is put on with a nice little bayonet mount, it comes right off (but is firmly attached when tightened with a two stage locking system). With it off, you would never know the foot attachment is even there.

Also, there are two holes in the foot (unlike many lenses that only have one...)

I haven't tried the focus limiter yet, about the only thing I did do was turn the VR on. I will be able to give you a better idea on the handling of it when I use it some...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

well, it's just that in comparison to the D70, the balance blows. On a D2x/h i'm sure the balance is brilliant.

 

[sabbath999]

Hrmmm... well, to be honest with you I didn't really think about the balance, which in its self tells me that it wasn't horrible. The lens felt good, but that may have been because I was concentrating on image quality. I will pay particular attention to it when I next shoot the lens. since it is very similar in size/weight to the 80-200, it should give a decent idea of what the 80-200 will feel like on a D80.

I really, really considered the 80-200 which is a LOT cheaper for virtually identical image quality and speed (just not the VR, and with some models not the AF-S)... I decided that I was planning on owning and using this lens for the next 10-20 years, so I am just going to buy what I want without compromise (not that the 80-200 would have been much of a compromise, it is a FANTASTIC and SHARP lens).

I have never had a D70 in my hands, so I don't know how different they feel to the D80.

I am also planning on using a battery grip in the near future, but I don't own one yet.

 

[Spoe]

Grats on your new acquisition, the 70-200VR is a stellar lens. :thumbup:

I believe that even though it's a bit longer and heavier than the 80-200, it balances out a bit better in your hands due to the slight taper the barrel has.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

well that's nice.

It's just that I don't really enjoy using the 80-200 on my camera because of the balance and simply how loud it it.

 

[sabbath999]

Is yours the non AF-S version?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

no, it's the modern AF-D one. When the screwdriver clicks and whirs into action, it attracts attention, and almost everytime I've used it for portraits, the client has asked, "Is it supposed to do that?"

I'm just waiting for an AF-S 70-200 f/4 VR. Now THAT would be sweet because it should be in the $800-$1100 bracket, perfect to sell off the 80-200 and get something with AF-S for faster focusing and no grinding or clicking of the camera body.

It's funny too, I used my 80-200 on an F100 once and i got a torque reaction from it! the rotating 77mmish front element made the whole thing jerk.

 

[Garbz]

Well then you mean Yes

There's actually an AF-S version of the 80-200 but I think it was discontinued long before the AF D because it undermined the 70-200mm. The whole autofocus thing with AF D lenses really depends on the camera too. D200 and from what I've seen the D2x has a wonderfully quick AF motor and is perfectly capable of focusing the 80-200 even when shooting fast paced sports.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Yeah, on my D70 it's real sluggish and loud because the motor is working so hard.

It's almost like driving at 35mph in 5th gear and than flooring it. lots of energy spent to not really go that quick.

I can see why sabbath went for the AF-S.