WANTED: Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR

[Restomage]

Like the title says. I'm looking for one used but in good working condition. I'm a poor college student trying to buy a nice lens for my newspaper, so I'm really only looking to spend around $1200. Let me know if anyone has one. Thanks.

 

[itznfb]

You can find some on eBay for around that price. I'd be extremely cautious in paying that though. You can easily get $1700 for a used copy right now.

 

[epp_b]

If you find a Nikon 70-200/2.8 for that price, there's probably something very wrong with it.

 

[KmH]

Like the title says. I'm looking for one used but in good working condition. I'm a poor college student trying to buy a nice lens for my newspaper, so I'm really only looking to spend around $1200. Let me know if anyone has one. Thanks.

For $1200 you can have a brand new, with warranty AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D.

 

[Phranquey]

If you are really set on the 70-200, you will need to add about $200 to $300 to that budget to get a decent used one.

KmH is right about the 80-200 f/2.8. You could also buy one of those used for about $850 for the AF-S, and roughly $650 to $750 for the AF-D, which are both superb lenses.

 

[Restomage]

I've considered the 80-200 but I think I'm going to stick with the 70-200VR. The VR is probably something nice to have especially when shooting sports which is what I will primarily be doing. Has anyone seen a significant difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200?

 

[itznfb]

VR won't help you much in sports. I've tried the panning mode in VR and I just didn't get good results. Most of the time VR is off for me.

Optically the 80-200mm is supposed to be just as good. I think it may focus a little slower though.

 

[JamesMason]

People sell this lens ? I always thought the only way to get one second hand was to have it surgicaly removed from its owner.

 

[Phranquey]

I've considered the 80-200 but I think I'm going to stick with the 70-200VR. The VR is probably something nice to have especially when shooting sports which is what I will primarily be doing. Has anyone seen a significant difference between the 80-200 and the 70-200?

VR won't help you much in sports. I've tried the panning mode in VR and I just didn't get good results. Most of the time VR is off for me.

Optically the 80-200mm is supposed to be just as good. I think it may focus a little slower though.

itznfb is correct. VR is meant to stabilize the camera (lens) in situations where a slower shutter speed is required....it will NOT do anything for fast moving subjects....that is up to your shutter speed.

From what you are wanting to shoot, and the budget you have, I would go with the 80-200 AF-S. The AF-D is slower on focusing, where the AF-S has the Silent-Wave motor like the 70-200. The image quality on the both of the 80-200's are excellent, but you will likely want the AF-S focusing for sports.

 

[Phranquey]

People sell this lens ? I always thought the only way to get one second hand was to have it surgicaly removed from its owner.

Normally, you would. But, with the economy the way it is, a lot of people are needing the money. If you have the money to spend, right now is a great time to pick up used equipment.

 

[Restomage]

Still looking.

 

[KmH]

Still looking.

3rd on holding out for the VR as being a waste. For shooting sports, the lens should be on a monopod with the VR turned off.

But, hey, its not my money.

 

[Restomage]

Still looking.

3rd on holding out for the VR as being a waste. For shooting sports, the lens should be on a monopod with the VR turned off.

But, hey, its not my money.

Well I'm not really buying the 70-200 because of the VR, i'm buying it mainly for the superior autofocusing and sharpness as well as image quality.

 

[itznfb]

Still looking.

3rd on holding out for the VR as being a waste. For shooting sports, the lens should be on a monopod with the VR turned off.

But, hey, its not my money.

Well I'm not really buying the 70-200 because of the VR, i'm buying it mainly for the superior autofocusing and sharpness as well as image quality.

Auto focusing yes, is improved however on the D90 you won't notice a difference between the 70-200 and the 80-200. Sharpness and Image Quality are almost identical. Not worth the $800 difference.

 

[Restomage]

3rd on holding out for the VR as being a waste. For shooting sports, the lens should be on a monopod with the VR turned off.

But, hey, its not my money.

Well I'm not really buying the 70-200 because of the VR, i'm buying it mainly for the superior autofocusing and sharpness as well as image quality.

Auto focusing yes, is improved however on the D90 you won't notice a difference between the 70-200 and the 80-200. Sharpness and Image Quality are almost identical. Not worth the $800 difference.

How about focusing speed?