70-200mm f/2.8

[AlexParlett]

Only ever take it off if i am doing fisheye or wideangle work, so anything but landscapes or some random conceptual ideas use it for pretty much everything, though it can be a bit awkward when working in areas with a lot of predestrians, had tendencies for people to walk almost into it.

 

[Joves]

I shoot with my 80-400 VR all the time. I dont mind the weight much, I got to work the fat off somewhere.
Tenn your 70-300 should be fine for some wildlife stuff as long as you are close enough. I like to set up temp blinds for some places I go. Then the aniamls move in closer and, dont know Im there.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

I shoot with my 80-400 VR all the time. I dont mind the weight much, I got to work the fat off somewhere.
Tenn your 70-300 should be fine for some wildlife stuff as long as you are close enough. I like to set up temp blinds for some places I go. Then the aniamls move in closer and, dont know Im there.

Yeah, I'm not really worried about bringing them in close....I bow hunt, so I know how to get animals in close. especially if I don't have hunting rules and regs to contend with...like baiting ..... plus I have an excellent ghilie suit.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

It's not that big, really. Photo courtesy of google and whomever took it:

Nikon Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR mounted on a D200

That gets me all excited, but I don't like the white, I want black instead......

 

[JerryPH]

I also like the black better, and thats what I bought. I was not about to pay $200 to make my lens look terrible... lol

 

[68Whiskey]

I see Nikon has jumped into the colored lens market. I kinda wish they were the Nikon logo yellow though, if they were I would so switch.

 

[pm63]

That lens is HUGE! 1.43kg according to Amazon!

How come it's so much bigger than the 55-200? And how come it needs 21 elemets?

Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.

 

[Tennessee Landscape]

That lens is HUGE! 1.43kg according to Amazon!

How come it's so much bigger than the 55-200? And how come it needs 21 elemets?

Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.

21 elements for the f/2.8 all the way through the focal range....

 

[sabbath999]

I don't care one rats hind end about what a lens looks like, all I care about is what the IMAGES it makes look like.

The 70-200 VR is a beast of a lens weight-wise, because it is a true f/2.8 zoom. It is lovely in every respect except weight...

I have it and the 55-200 VR, which I use when I want a small, light lens for shooting in broad daylight. Unless you are shooting wide open with the lenses... if you shoot them both at f/11 or so... the image quality is virtually identical.

I know the "lens hounds" here will shudder when I say that, but I own em both and I shoot them both, and it is just plain the way it is...

Having said all this, the 70-200 is VASTLY superior when you are NOT shooting at f/11 ... and for about 10 times the money, it should be.

 

[usayit]

Also, some of you are "embarrased" by such a lens... but you shoot big DSLRS which scream "pro!" to your average P+S consumer, so you're hardly "shaming" yourself even more if you mount such a lens.

I think it has more to do with what you like to shoot and how you wanna shoot it.

Busy streets of NYC.. um no..
Wedding or format event (and I'm not the official photog).. um no...
A sports event... sure...

My other camera is comfortable enough to carry at all times.... something I can't do with a large DSLR... and no one even takes notice.

 

[sabbath999]

Wedding or format event (and I'm not the official photog).. um no...

With all due respect, you sound a bit like somebody who has never shot a wedding...

The 70-200 VR is PERFECT for weddings... I would have that on a third D3 body at all times were I shooting, with a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 on my main D3 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 on my backup D3.

If this sounds a bit expensive, well... to me, there is only one way to do a wedding... the RIGHT way... and that means the best equipment money can buy (there is a reason when I did weddings I was one of the most expensive photographers around).

 

[Phranquey]

That gets me all excited, but I don't like the white, I want black instead......

The grass is always greener....Having the black one, I would prefer to have the white (Canon envy).....

I absolutely love the lens, and it is the one I probably take 80% of my pictures with. If made to choose to only have one lens in my bag, this would be it without hesitation.
But, when you are outside a lot, in the sun, the black lenses get far hotter than the white ones. I've never had it affect the quality of my pictures, and it has never seemed to bother the operation of the lens, but it has gotten hot enough at times that I now keep a small piece of old white T-shirt and a few rubber bands to put on it if I am going to have it on a tripod out in the sun all day.

 

[JerryPH]

If the lens gets hot, imagine how the camera feels. Makes little sense to me to cover the lens, but not the camera, which I would not do anyways (talk about looking strange and attracting attention )

Concerning Nikon/Nikkor and wedding lenses... apparently, over at the local pro wedding forums, 85-90% of all 'togs that use Nikon bodies, use the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR, so it does seem to be the lens to have for weddings. I can see why too.

 

[usayit]

With all due respect, you sound a bit like somebody who has never shot a wedding...

The 70-200 VR is PERFECT for weddings... I

Sabbath.. read again... you missed "and I'm not the official photog" part.

I'm a guest.. not the official wedding photog... I wanna enjoy the wedding too.. not lug around the heavy lens and be mistaken for the photographer.

OF COURSE if I were the wedding photographer and my focus was shooting the wedding, I would carry the 70-200 f2.8 and other high quality fast lenses. OF COURSE I would not care about weight and looks... I'm there to shoot and not enjoy the festivities. Yes.. shot a few...

 

[Phranquey]

If the lens gets hot, imagine how the camera feels. Makes little sense to me to cover the lens, but not the camera, which I would not do anyways (talk about looking strange and attracting attention ;-) )

Not much worried about the strange looks, I get those without the camera....

But I usually use a large enough piece to rubber band to the lens, and have enough left to "flap" over the camera if needed. Most of the time, though, I am in a home-made blind, with the front of the lens protruding out into the sun.