Anyone have a D3000 and mount the 70-200 2.8?

[ababysean]

The camera is so small and light, and the lens is a beast!
Is this possible?

I'm renting the lens and a D200 for a bridal session tomorrow but I'd like to mount the 50mm on the D200 so it will autofocus and then mount the 70-200 on my D3000.

 

[MohaimenK]

yeah it'll be big but u'll b fine. I did that yesterday at the wedding. Had the 70-200 hooked to the T1i and had 16-35 on the 5D

 

[KmH]

The camera is so small and light, and the lens is a beast!
Is this possible?

I'm renting the lens and a D200 for a bridal session tomorrow but I'd like to mount the 50mm on the D200 so it will autofocus and then mount the 70-200 on my D3000.

Sure, you can do that.

The question with the D3000/70-2000 combo will be - How good is your camera handeling/holding technique?

 

[o hey tyler]

Here's my logic, and take this as you will...

Regardless of the camera manufacturer, I'm fairly confident that Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax/etc all engineer their bodies to work with any lens in their lineup. It would be a poor strategy to have a slew of lenses, and then have "x" and "y" lenses that don't work on hardened plastic body, or an entry level body if you prefer.

I think you'll be fine with whatever lens you decide to use. If anyone knows differently than what I just mentioned about camera body integrity and lens mount durability then please correct the above statement.

 

[ababysean]

Some lens will not autofocus on my D3000. But the one I'm using is AF-S so it will.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm not talking about autofocus. I'm talking about the weight of the lens breaking the camera body, or lens mounting system... Which is what I thought you were concerned with, no?

I may have not made that clear in the post. I understand why you would want to use an AF lens on your D3000, but I don't think you need to worry about your camera breaking, or any camera breaking, because the weight of a lens.

But like I said, I haven't heard of any instances where you can't use a consumer lens for a DSLR because of the weight of the lens.

 

[ababysean]

oh ok
I am getting ready to go pick it up and give it a go! we will see what happens!

 

[Neil S.]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...iews/219973-lens-mount-ripped-off-camera.html

 

[memento]

Had the 70-200 hooked to the T1i

Nikon bodies are a lot smaller than Canon. and 70-200 2.8 is a BIG lens.

sure it will work. :thumbup:

it'll look funny though!

 

[jdag]

I use a 70-200 2.8 VRII on a D90. I see these threads and they do make me a little paranoid. But when I walk around, I just hold the lens as opposed to letting it just hang from the body and strap.

 

[cnutco]

Can't look any funnier than a 200 - 400mm f/4 on a D300 or a D700...

Just be careful and support that lens!

 

[Neil S.]

This thread just proves my point that build quality is very important.

You see so often that people say "This cheaper camera is almost as good as this more expensive one" by just comparing MP, etc.

What they often fail to realize is that cameras like the 7D and D300 have superior build quality to ones like the T2i and D90.

To each his own. If you are going to spend $2000+ on lenses, its probably wise to get a body that is constructed from metal as well.

 

[Derrel]

It will handle it; I have used the Nikon D40 (same place in the lineup as today's D3000, the smallest, lowest-price d-slr) with the 70-200 VR as well as the 7-pound 200mm f/2 AF-S V-G, which is a very heavy lens...no problems were experienced...it's not like the thing is going to fall apart on you...I've shot the D70 with the 300/2.8, another 7-pound lens, and what was at the time, one of the lowest-end Nikon bodies...

As you move up into the bigger lenses, you realize that the LENS is what you end up supporting with your left hand, most of the time, and the lens is where the monopod or tripod screw is fastened, so the majority of the weight is supported at the heavier end of the equation--the lens end. So, it really ends up this way: the LENS is what is supporting the weight of the camera, and not the other way around. Your fears and worries are completely misguided by unfamiliarity with the way heavier, pro-level equipment is actually held and shot, which is understandable.

It's not as if conscious effort is required; when you pick up a heavy lens/camera combo, your left hand (or monopod or tripod) will naturally bear the majority of the weight...because, well, because that's the way it is easiest to do...it's almost like breathing--you do not have to think about it to do it...

 

[kundalini]

I typically rotate the foot to North on the lens until I mount it on a pod. This also gets it out of the way when hand holding. I always grab the combo by the foot when picking it up and support the body too until in position. When walking about, I always hold and support the lens. You should be fine if you use common sense.

 

[o hey tyler]

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...iews/219973-lens-mount-ripped-off-camera.html

That was funny, if it was directed at me. Because in the same thread you linked to me, you said:

His point that they are plastic is valid. His point that they could be ripped off under unsupported (implied normal) use is what I was disputing. All instances mentioned here were of catastrophic failure due to impact (user error) not unsupported use.

Ahh ok.

Ya this does seem very uncommon.

So much so that I have never heard of it before for any camera...

And as it turned out it was because their camera fell from a table to the ground and the lens mount got taken with the lens. Not from camera failure under normal use.