Just bought a Nikon 70-200 2.8

[poke]

I came across a good trade deal for my 70-300 VR to upgrade to a Nikon 70-200.

I had no idea the 70-200 f4 was announced so now I'm wondering if it was a mistake getting this lens or waiting for the f4.

I currently shoot with a d7000, a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and now the 70-200 2.8.

I'm 17 and a senior class historian in high school so I mainly shoot sports or a lot of events with some being in low light, portraits or whatever I'm asked to get.

Never used my 70-300 VR much though because the aperture wasn't working out with low light

 

[Trever1t]

you didn't make a mistake, don't know much about that new lens but I use my 70-200 between f2.8+f4 most of the time

 

[matthewo]

sense you could obviously afford the 70-200 f2.8, dont even worry about the new F4 version, it was put out to be a slightly more affordable pro grade zoom. the only thing that might be better about the F4 is the VR III system that claims and extra stop. personally i never use my 70-200 at low enough shutter speeds to need more VR, unless using a tripod, where its not needed. the 70-200 vr II, it still a better lens then the new F4, it was never built to beat it, just a more affordable option for those not needing 2.8.

also like to add the 70-200 is an amazing lens. it produces amazing results, and even gets better when you put it on an FX camera. i loved it on my d7000, but it became a whole nother level on the d800

 

[fjrabon]

the 2.8 beats the 4 for sports, every single time.

 

[poke]

sense you could obviously afford the 70-200 f2.8, dont even worry about the new F4 version, it was put out to be a slightly more affordable pro grade zoom. the only thing that might be better about the F4 is the VR III system that claims and extra stop. personally i never use my 70-200 at low enough shutter speeds to need more VR, unless using a tripod, where its not needed. the 70-200 vr II, it still a better lens then the new F4, it was never built to beat it, just a more affordable option for those not needing 2.8.

also like to add the 70-200 is an amazing lens. it produces amazing results, and even gets better when you put it on an FX camera. i loved it on my d7000, but it became a whole nother level on the d800

Thanks, I was just browsing Craigslist one morning to see what 70-200's were running for because i needed the 2.8 for night football games and came across it so I jumped on it. It happened to be an older photographer who was looking to downsize his lenses and replace the big 70-200 with the 70-300. The 70-200 was only used a few times and is in brand new condition. It's a vr1 thought, not sure if you thought it was the vr2

 

[poke]

the 2.8 beats the 4 for sports, every single time.

Agreed. I forgot I was using my 70-300 VR the other night and had my iso probably at 3200 and I wasn't getting good results but I think the aperture changed to 5.6 when I zoomed to 300

 

[Rosy]

you made no mistake - you will love that lens

CONGRATS!

 

[Trever1t]

VR1 lens is as good on a DX optically as the VR2, maybe better. The VR2 focuses faster.

 

[MLeeK]

You made the right choice. You give up a lot when going from f/2.8 to f/4. When I consider your age I am guessing that you'll be shooting in the school/college, clubs, etc plus your sports. The f/4 wouldn't cut it as well as the one you bought. You only gain one full stop when dropping from 5.6 to 4. It's twice as much light, but when you are shooting in the dark it's not nearly enough!

 

[poke]

You made the right choice. You give up a lot when going from f/2.8 to f/4. When I consider your age I am guessing that you'll be shooting in the school/college, clubs, etc plus your sports. The f/4 wouldn't cut it as well as the one you bought. You only gain one full stop when dropping from 5.6 to 4. It's twice as much light, but when you are shooting in the dark it's not nearly enough!

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Can't wait to try it out. Any suggestions on a second body? I'm trying to avoid switching lenses in the middle of events

 

[MLeeK]

I'd say a second D7000 would be your best bet. The D5100 or the new D5200 might be a good option if you need to save a little.
I RARELY switch lenses at an event and almost constantly shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8.

 

[poke]

I'd say a second D7000 would be your best bet. The D5100 or the new D5200 might be a good option if you need to save a little.
I RARELY switch lenses at an event and almost constantly shoot with the 70-200 f/2.8.

That's what I had in mind or I'd use my d3100 that's laying around till I get something else

 

[matthewo]

The 70-200 Also makes for a very cool setup on a Nikon v1 with a ft-1. If Your looking to try wildlife, and dont want to spend the price of a nice used car on a Nikon super telephoto, the v1 is a nice low price body option. It Also gives very good macro results with its 2.7 crop factor. Its mirorless and kinda a 4/3s like body, but very capable and very useful

 

[shadowlands]

Congrats!!! f2.8 with reach is "a good life" for sure!!!

 

[manaheim]

Just out of curiosity, are we talking the VR or the VR2?

I don't know what the F4 will be like, but it's quite a bit newer than the VR and while you do lose some stops, it's -possible- that it may be an overall better lens. The VR had some issues. The VR2 is an absolutely brilliant lens and pretty much nothing is going to beat it for a long time.