Nikkor 70-200mm VR f/2.8 advice needed

[cphanh]

Hi- I am thinking about getting this lens for most of my photography endeavor. Please tell me what you think about it with pros and cons. Also I really want to know if this lens is worth the price.

 

[sburatorul]

i think it is worth it. i know i would love one of these instead of my 55-200. if you need it, its a great lens. kinda pricey tho!

i had the opportunity to shoot a few shots with one of these and i am in love with it ever since.

 

[c0ps]

Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

 

[Big Mike]

Great lens. I know a few photographers who shoot with it, and I have the Canon equivalent.

 

[adamwilliamking]

Please tell me what you think about it with pros and cons.
http://img195.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nikkor70200vrf28.jpg

Pro: You won't find a sharper telephoto.
Pro: Now that it's a VR, well its VR
Pro: THE professional studio lens for a nikon user

Con: Its heavy, buy a mono pod

Also I really want to know if this lens is worth the price.

You have to answer this question.
Do you want to be a serious photographer?
My advice is never settle for third party unless you want it to reflect in your work, never do anything in photography unless you it to reflect in your work.

So yes I obviously love this lens.
I ONLY use 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, all Nikon ED
Wouldn't settle for less.

 

[gravity0]

Why is it $300+ more than the Canon equiv??

 

[Jaszek]

Why is it $300+ more than the Canon equiv??

Because it's Nikon lol. I noticed most Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon equivalents.

 

[manaheim]

I don't have THAT lens, I have the 80-200 2.8 non-VR, which is an amazing lens. I can say that the VR would absolutely be handy to deal with some camera shake issues with such a heavy lense.... buuuuuuuuut... I often wonder if it's really worth such a HARSH price premium to get that VR.

Note... everything in the following paragraph should be taken with not just a grain of salt, but a SALT LICK...

I've also heard, btw, that the lens is not as sharp as the non-VR and that it doesn't do -great- on full frame cameras. I've also heard RUMORS that Nikon will be overhauling this lens at some point in the near future.

 

[seward93]

It's a nice, fast lens. Get the best that you can get! If you can afford the VR, then get the VR. Like said by adamwilliamking, if you go the cheaper route, it will usually show.

 

[itznfb]

after 4 years of using the 55-200mm VR i just purchased the 70-200mm 2.8 VR two weeks ago and i absolutely love it. ultra fast, ultra sharp but pricey and heavy.

 

[Phranquey]

If you have the cash to spend on it, you will not regret it....It is a fantastic lens. Tack sharp, very fast focus, and the VR definitely helps out in the low light situations. It's built like a tank, and can feel like it after a while of hand holding, so that is one trade-off.

If you are having doubts about laying out that kind of green, then I would highly recommend the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S or AF-D. I had the AF-D, and it was a great lens as well.

 

[FrankLamont]

Yep, Canon's a lot cheaper than counterparts in lenses. Especially in telephoto, where it stands out. But especially not in the wide angle field... grr - the 16-35mm might be nice, but the Nikkor 14-24mm is just... sweet.