Nikon 70-200mm 2.8E FL ED VR

[goodguy]

Ok so no one bite the bullet and wrote about this new lens so I will.

Holly S__t Nikon are you charging 2800$ for this lens ?
Really ?

Ok, I got this of my chest, I am sure its a fantastic lens but at this price I am not bothering to check because unless its made of gold I don't see the point to consider it when you can get a Sigma or Tamron or even the VRII for far less.

So what do you think about this new lens ?
Planning on getting it ?

 

[astroNikon]

I heard the 50-200 is sharper and thousands less ....

I like the new 19mm tilt shift.

 

[tirediron]

Hadn't even heard of it. I'll wait 'til Ken Rockwell tells me if I should buy it 'cause it's the best lens for my D60.

 

[shadowlands]

Too costly for my wallet. I paid 1K for a 70-200mm VRI a few months ago. I'm good. I love it. If they two later versions blow my version away, so be it.
This lens rocks for my needs.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hadn't even heard of it. I'll wait 'til Ken Rockwell tells me if I should buy it 'cause it's the best lens for my D60.

Well, the best lens other than the 28-300, which is the gold standard to which all other lenses must be held. At least according to Rockwell

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[robbins.photo]

Too costly for my wallet. I paid 1K for a 70-200mm VRI a few months ago. I'm good. I love it. If they two later versions blow my version away, so be it.
This lens rocks for my needs.

Pretty much where I'm at. The vr I does everything I need and then some. If I suddenly find myself with three extra grand I'm sure not going to spend that to get 1-2 pixels in the extreme edge of a photo to be just a hair sharper.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg]

Too costly for my wallet. I paid 1K for a 70-200mm VRI a few months ago. I'm good. I love it. If they two later versions blow my version away, so be it.
This lens rocks for my needs.

Pretty much where I'm at. The vr I does everything I need and then some. If I suddenly find myself with three extra grand I'm sure not going to spend that to get 1-2 pixels in the extreme edge of a photo to be just a hair sharper.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

If you don't mind me asking, what did you pay for the one you just bought? Used or refurb? Online or in person?

 

[robbins.photo]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you pay for the one you just bought? Used or refurb? Online or in person?

Wow.. I'm so incredibly offended by that question....

Lol, ok, no not really. I just made that up. I purchased mine used from Ebay, Paid $950 for it. The gentleman I bought it from obviously didn't use it too often, it was in pristine condition.

 

[Braineack]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

 

[goodguy]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

Yeap, its a big improvement for sure, but it will be limited to those who make all their cash in photography, for people like me who does pro work only part time this is an unacceptable investment, I will stick to my Tami and dream on this lens

 

[jcdeboever]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

I have to agree here. You did a good job explaining the vast improvements in this glass. I read it thoroughly yesterday and while expensive, I can tell by the sample photos on Nikon's site that it's rendering has a unique quality. I would definitely like to buy one and I trust it would blow away my Sigma 70-200 2.8. I may actually save up for this glass, I shoot a lot of grandson's sports at this focal length. The close focus at 3.6' is a nice feature.

 

[astroNikon]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

I have to agree here. You did a good job explaining the vast improvements in this glass. I read it thoroughly yesterday and while expensive, I can tell by the sample photos on Nikon's site that it's rendering has a unique quality. I would definitely like to buy one and I trust it would blow away my Sigma 70-200 2.8. I may actually save up for this glass, I shoot a lot of grandson's sports at this focal length. The close focus at 3.6' is a nice feature.

I'll wait and borrow it from jcdeboever here ... too much $$ for me.

 

[jcdeboever]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

I have to agree here. You did a good job explaining the vast improvements in this glass. I read it thoroughly yesterday and while expensive, I can tell by the sample photos on Nikon's site that it's rendering has a unique quality. I would definitely like to buy one and I trust it would blow away my Sigma 70-200 2.8. I may actually save up for this glass, I shoot a lot of grandson's sports at this focal length. The close focus at 3.6' is a nice feature.

I'll wait and borrow it from jcdeboever here ... too much $$ for me.

I will probably get it by late spring according to my math.

 

[robbins.photo]

Look at the new specs and tech.

The current 70-200 VR II is $2100. So this new one is $700 more.

You get all the new lens coatings: 6 ED, 1 Fluorite, 1 HRI element + Nano Crystal & Fluorine coatings VS. 7 ED + Nano Crystal

The electromagnetic aperture surely costs $$$$ -- helps with exposure during bursts. It has zoom and AF locks. It weighs less. It's smaller. It can focus an entire foot closer. the improved VR (with two modes: sport and tripod) can do 4 stops vs 3.5. It has improved weather sealing.

it's already an expensive workhorse lens. They've added enough to it to warrant the cost and it's not going to stop professionals from buying it. You mere mortals, sure.

But I think we should stop professionals from buying it. In fact I'm more than willing to chain myself to one now in protest. Just need one to chain myself too....

Lol

 

[Braineack]

you could just buy one and stop bothering other people...