just stole a nikon 70-200 vr ii, not really but got it cheap i think

[matthewo]

well ebay gave me a 10% coupon off on up to $100 worth. then i found a nikon 70-200 vr ii, that is actually local to the same city i live in :mrgreen:. after all coupons it came out to $1750 for a excellent condition 70-2000 vr II, holy cow, i was going to just get a vr I, but at that price i couldnt pass up...

 

[DorkSterr]

Wow congrats! Really want this lens but bought the 50-500mm Sigma which I regret.

 

[matthewo]

yeah, i have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 right now, and its decent for the price, but i have a nikon 24-70 f2.8 and every time i switch between the two i feel the sigma is way lacking compaired to the nikon 2.8. so thats why i had to get it. on my way to the trinity btw how do you like the 14-24?

also for the limited birding and wildlife photography i do i just plan to use the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter, cause i hear it actually performs very decently.

 

[cgipson1]

It is a great lens! My absolute favorite! (although the 85mm 1.4 is close!) lol!

 

[Robin Usagani]

Wow congrats! Really want this lens but bought the 50-500mm Sigma which I regret.

The 10X zoom is your first hint that it is going to suck.

 

[matthewo]

i agree, i love the 70-200mm focal distance. i thought i wasnt going to use it much so i invested in the 24-70, cause i thought that would be on my cam 90% of the time. now that i got the sigma 70-200mm i just love to use it.

i guess using the 24-70 feels more like a "tool" it does the job great, but isnt fun, and doesnt have that extra "fun" factor factor. the 70-200mm at f2.8 just gives that great bokeh and is so fun to use...

i hope that kinda made sense. hahah, my 24-70 has been in the bag a while now that i got the sigma and the tokina 11-16 some what recently. and with the nikor 70-200 vr ii im sure it will be feeling pretty sad haha

 

[DorkSterr]

yeah, i have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 right now, and its decent for the price, but i have a nikon 24-70 f2.8 and every time i switch between the two i feel the sigma is way lacking compaired to the nikon 2.8. so thats why i had to get it. on my way to the trinity btw how do you like the 14-24?

also for the limited birding and wildlife photography i do i just plan to use the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter, cause i hear it actually performs very decently.

I actually really like the 14-24mm I do a fair amount of landscapes and its SHARP!!! From all corners.

Wow congrats! Really want this lens but bought the 50-500mm Sigma which I regret.

The 10X zoom is your first hint that it is going to suck.

Hahah! No kidding I just really wanted a walk around lens with a lot of reach but damn, when the 50-500mm goes beyond 300mm the colour starts to look very washed out. I keep telling myself I should of gone with the 70-200 f2.8 + a 1.7 TC III.

 

[cgipson1]

yeah, i have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 right now, and its decent for the price, but i have a nikon 24-70 f2.8 and every time i switch between the two i feel the sigma is way lacking compaired to the nikon 2.8. so thats why i had to get it. on my way to the trinity btw how do you like the 14-24?

also for the limited birding and wildlife photography i do i just plan to use the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter, cause i hear it actually performs very decently.

I actually really like the 14-24mm I do a fair amount of landscapes and its SHARP!!! From all corners.

Wow congrats! Really want this lens but bought the 50-500mm Sigma which I regret.

The 10X zoom is your first hint that it is going to suck.

Hahah! No kidding I just really wanted a walk around lens with a lot of reach but damn, when the 50-500mm goes beyond 300mm the colour starts to look very washed out. I keep telling myself I should of gone with the 70-200 f2.8 + a 1.7 TC III.

I use my 70-200 VR II with a TC20E (2X TC) and it shines! It does loose some IQ.. but still rocks....

 

[cgipson1]

i agree, i love the 70-200mm focal distance. i thought i wasnt going to use it much so i invested in the 24-70, cause i thought that would be on my cam 90% of the time. now that i got the sigma 70-200mm i just love to use it.

i guess using the 24-70 feels more like a "tool" it does the job great, but isnt fun, and doesnt have that extra "fun" factor factor. the 70-200mm at f2.8 just gives that great bokeh and is so fun to use...

i hope that kinda made sense. hahah, my 24-70 has been in the bag a while now that i got the sigma and the tokina 11-16 some what recently. and with the nikor 70-200 vr ii im sure it will be feeling pretty sad haha

The thing I love about the 70-200 VRII is it focuses like it was laser guided or something.. so fast and accurate, it beats any other lens I have ever used.

 

[DorkSterr]

yeah, i have a sigma 70-200 f2.8 right now, and its decent for the price, but i have a nikon 24-70 f2.8 and every time i switch between the two i feel the sigma is way lacking compaired to the nikon 2.8. so thats why i had to get it. on my way to the trinity btw how do you like the 14-24?

also for the limited birding and wildlife photography i do i just plan to use the 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter, cause i hear it actually performs very decently.

I actually really like the 14-24mm I do a fair amount of landscapes and its SHARP!!! From all corners.

The 10X zoom is your first hint that it is going to suck.

Hahah! No kidding I just really wanted a walk around lens with a lot of reach but damn, when the 50-500mm goes beyond 300mm the colour starts to look very washed out. I keep telling myself I should of gone with the 70-200 f2.8 + a 1.7 TC III.

I use my 70-200 VR II with a TC20E (2X TC) and it shines! It does loose some IQ.. but still rocks....

Oh gosh... Add more fire to my regret LOL! Is it a noticeable difference of IQ loss when using the 2.0 TC III vs no TC?

 

[matthewo]

i have the sigma 70-200 hsm ii, and a 1.4x teleconverter. i found it works a lot better when you use the focus fine adjustment to -3 then its right on, but still doesnt alway lock

 

[Netskimmer]

Hahah! No kidding I just really wanted a walk around lens with a lot of reach but damn, when the 50-500mm goes beyond 300mm the colour starts to look very washed out. I keep telling myself I should of gone with the 70-200 f2.8 + a 1.7 TC III.

I don't think there is a 1.7 TC III, I have the 70-200 and a 1.7 TC II and while I do notice some loss in image quality it is still a good setup.

 

[cgipson1]

Oh gosh... Add more fire to my regret LOL! Is it a noticeable difference of IQ loss when using the 2.0 TC III vs no TC?

yes.. there is some definite loss in contrast and sharpness, but not bad unless you print LARGE or pixel peep. Of course, what is good is very subjective to different people too! I would rather fill the frame at 400mm than crop at 200mm (usually)...

 

[matthewo]

oh yeah earned $37 in ebay bucks too, forgot about that. love ebay bucks, but hate ebay fees, i guess thats why i do more buying then selling on ebay now. ebay sucks for sellers nowadays

i might just put those bucks towards a teleconverter. whats the main difference between the II and the III, just a newer model or actually better optics? i guess with any new model optics are a little better, but not sure if its worth the extra price. these nikon converters are not cheap... thats for sure.

i guess my sigma apo 1.4x autofocus teleconverter would work for testing.

 

[bhop]

Darn you.. I just paid around that for a VRI.. used it for the first time today. I can't believe what a difference it is from the Sigma 70-200 I have been using.. it's incredible.