Newb thinking of buying nikkor70-200 vr

[Snoggin]

I am a real neophyte, I bought a D7000 About three weeks ago as a refurb with a Tamron17-50. I have. Been shooting with it quite a bit and learning both Lightroom and photoshop. I find myself looking for more reach quite often especially shooting my sons soccer games... Can't get close enough for interesting pictures..

I have the funds and have found several nearby on Craigslist. Looking at the original VR I model.It seems I could resell it fairly easily if necessarry and take little or no hit...

There is one nearby for 1400 described as mint.Which brings up the next question... How do I evaluate the condition.. I suppose general appearance and put it on my cama and fire some shots off.. Any special test type tuff I should do or???

ThoughtsThanks in advanceTim

 

[Bossy]

Instead of buying an older version and used 70-200mm nikon, check out the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS. Its 1400 new as well, and I played with both the new 70-200 nikkor and the sigma the other day and was pretty wow'd by the sigma.

I personally would have a hard time forking over that much money to craigslist. There's just no guarentee it wont crap out on you or that they treated it decent that way.

 

[otherprof]

I have a feeling many might not agree with me, but I would suggest looking at the Nikkor 18-200 VRII, which I think is great. It sell for about $850, but I bought mine for about $650, I think, with a Nikon promotional sale, a few months ago.

 

[Snoggin]

One thing that makes me look hard at the Nikon is the resale seems very strong on them. Anything I buy new depreciates a lot.. But it is new so a trade off.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I have a feeling many might not agree with me, but I would suggest looking at the Nikkor 18-200 VRII, which I think is great. It sell for about $850, but I bought mine for about $650, I think, with a Nikon promotional sale, a few months ago.

Photos not quite as sharp is the trade off for such a broad range in one lens

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Nikkor VRI will be sharper than its Sigma competitor wide open. It may be about Nil to you, one can google for comparisons of those lenses side by side and examples

 

[Bossy]

Well from what I read/see, the 70-200mm is generally a keeper. Resell is good to think about, but when you get to good quality glass, people will pay even if its not Nikon.

 

[cgipson1]

Any of the top end lenses will do well for you... I am partial to the Nikons, but that Sigma Bossy mentioned is well thought of also. I would look for a constant aperture lens.. preferably one of the 2.8s... that will give you more options for low light, and will be sharper just a stop or two from wide open. If you are serious about getting good shots, either the Nikon 70-200 2.8 (I or II) would be my recommendation.. with the Sigma as an option. The 18-200 that was mentioned would be ok, if you need a lower cost lens.. but even then I would go for the Nikon 28-300. I have one and it is an excellent lens for a "do it all" type lens....

 

[zamanakhan]

I have a feeling many might not agree with me, but I would suggest looking at the Nikkor 18-200 VRII, which I think is great. It sell for about $850, but I bought mine for about $650, I think, with a Nikon promotional sale, a few months ago.

Sorry i dont like this lens, kinda crappy build quality and image quality as well. If image quality is concerned over convenience I would rather have the 18-55 +55-200 for 1/4th the price, u can easily pick them both up used for under $250. If you want a general all purpose snap shot lens then sure go for the 18-200 for that it is amazing, actually a kit with an 18-200 and a 50 1.8 or 85 1.8 would be pretty friggin versatile. If you just want reach maybe try a 55-200vr if you re set on a 2.8 zoom perhaps consider an older 80-200 AFS lens, or the sigma suggested(i can't recommend this tho as i've never shot with one?) i was shooting with it this morning and was once again taken back by how sharp the 80-200 afs is wide open. The 70-200vr at 1400 sounds like a decent deal i'd be torn between a $1000 80-200 afs and that for 1400.

For your son's soccer game i would easily recommend the 70-200, at 2.8 u can leave the iso lower and shutter speeds high outside to get some wicked sharp action shots, the 18-200 u'll have to bump up the iso quite a bit with a smaller aperature, same goes for a 55-200. For that kind of shooting i personally think the vr would useless because you need shutter speeds high enough to stop the action, vr doesnt help one bit with this. Remeber tho the 70-200 is HUGE and HEAVY. I rarely take out my 80-200, i've started to do so more but still very rarely.

To test the lens i would mount it on my own camera, shoot in available light at high shutter speeds and make sure AF is tack sharp at all focal lengths. Not being sharp could mean the lens was banged against a wall or something to throw off the focus. Take the lens off and shine a light thru to check for dust, there maybe some but make sure there is no fungus or scratches especially on the back element scratches on the elements obviously mean misuse, and fungus or water spots would mean the lens has taken a swim. Open and close the aperture lever manually to check it opens and closes smoothly. Other than that just general scratches and such, anything that shows wear. I've purchased tons of equipment used and have yet to be burned by a purchase.

 

[KmH]

I have a feeling many might not agree with me, but I would suggest looking at the Nikkor 18-200 VRII...

You're right. Many won't agree with you based on the OP's intended use.

The Nikon 18-200 mm at 200 mm has a max aperture of only f/5.6. Even at 18 mm the max aperture is only f/3.5. The barrel and pin cushion distortion are also issues. Basically the 18-200 is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none convenience lens that by superzoom range design necessity has a lot of image quality compromises stacked one on top of another.

The that 70-200 mm f/2.8 is a constant aperture zoom lens is a large part of why it costs what it does.

Since the OP has a D7000 I would recommend this lens- Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Good used 2-ring 80-200 mm f/2.8's sell for $800 - $900. A used on bought from KEH.com comes with a 6 month KEH warranty. You get no warranty buying from Craigslist.

The push-pull Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 zooms are just as good, somewhat older, and are only about $600 for a good used copy.

For shooting youth and adult soccer I used the 80-200 f/2.8 lens, and on a second camera body I had a Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Shooting from the end line near the goal is better than shooting from the sidelines, because you can shoot the action as it comes at you, not as it goes past you.

 

[Snoggin]

Is the one you linked. 80-200. An afs version?. There is one of those near me for $880. I need to look up difference af to afsThanks for all th replies and opinions. Keep em comingTim

 

[zamanakhan]

there are 3 versions of the 80-200 2.8 a push pull an AF-D 80-200 this is often referred to as the dual ring and then the afs 80-200 2.8. The afs is my preference although the AF-D and AFs versions are very comparable, if there was a big difference in price i would go for the AF-D. if money was tight i would even go for the push and pull lens. The AFS has the fastest autofocus barely faster than the D and the push and pull is the slowest. i dont know about the push and pull but the later two are Pretty darn sharp.

i would pay: 800-1000$ is good for afs, 600-800 for the AF-D and no more than $600 for the push and pull. I like to have nikon glass especially if its full frame, only time i will buy off brand is DX lenses. I would get the sigma over the push and pull but not over the AF-D or AFS.
Nikon push and pull<Sigma 70-200< nikon 80-200 afd< 80-200 AFS< 70-200 2.8's

 

[Snoggin]

Thanks for the explanations.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

70-200 VR1 or II > 80-200

 

[KmH]

Is the one you linked. 80-200. An afs version?. There is one of those near me for $880. I need to look up difference af to afsThanks for all th replies and opinions. Keep em comingTim

No. But Nikon did make an AF-S version of that lens, though they didn't make it for very long, so there aren't a lot of them available.

AF-S means there is a Silent Wave auto focus motor in the lens. AF means the lens utilizes the AF motor and screw-drive system in the camera body because the lens does not have an auto focus motor in it.