File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Got this in the mail this morning, d300 should arrive soon. :) anyone have experience with this?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
fail

superior times infinity

but enjoy your slow, heavy, shitty, no VR lens though
>> Anonymous
>>231735
no food for you!
>> Anonymous
why doesnt nikon just call vibration reduction image stabilization?
>> Anonymous
>>231735
Enjoy no aperture ring and shit tripod mount
>> Anonymous
>>231741
because they can't trademark "image stabilization" and the phrase is already used by smelly canonfags
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
sorry i'm late guize
>> Anonymous
>>231753
gtfo, you're too expensive
>> Anonymous
>>231757

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR ... $1,749.98
Sony SAL70200G G Series 70-200mm f/2.8 G ... $1,799.99


lolwut
>> Anonymous
>>231758
wow, talk about price cuts

it had a MSRP of some $2000+ when it was released
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>231724
Love it. One of the best lenses I've ever used, hands down. The 70-200 VR is even better. It's staggeringly sharp and contrasty.
>> Anonymous
>>231752
wow they really trademarked it?
oly uses it too! OOOH
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hay guys, with my crop factor I'm a 70-200 too
>> Anonymous
>>231767
Can't wait to J-j-jam you into a microFT camera.
>> Anonymous
>>231767


gtfo nigger
>> Anonymous
>>231772
that'll look like a pom trying to fuck a great dane
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>231744Enjoy no aperture ring and shit tripod mount

uh who the fuck wants an aperture ring on a telephoto

and the tripod ring is vastly superior on the 70-200, quick release and 2 point attachment

but hey, enjoy your fail
>> Anonymous
>>231762

QFT

When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Nikon. There are always distinctions to be made between Nikon and Canon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Canons are the best cameras made by engineers, but Nikons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.
>> Anonymous
>>231767
i wanted that so bad, atleast i think thats the one. its a 2.8 right? like 2000 bucks?
>> Anonymous
>>231792

f/2.0
>> Anonymous
haha 70-200, enjoy your 2.8 blurriness, and your flaring, and you're shit shit shittington life
>> Anonymous
>>231854
wat
>> Anonymous
does this lens work with ken rockwell mode?
>> Anonymous
Does this lens own? Yes.
Am I jealous? Yes.
Do I disregard that, I suck cocks? Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>231860
only with left handed camera models
>> Anonymous
Sorry guys.. stupid question inbound.

Whats the difference between my standard nikon 70-200VR and these?

Good answer wins cake.
>> Anonymous
>>231878Whats the difference between my standard nikon 70-200VR and these?

this is for poorfags who can't afford a much superior lens
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>231878
The 80-200 2.8 was one of the best, most versatile lenses in any photographer's bag. Jay Maisel loved it. The new 70-200 VR is even better, but both are fantastic lenses. I can't remotely afford a 70-200, but 80-200s are going for like $500-700 on the Dallas and Austin craigslists. That's a pretty nice savings compared to the 70-200, especially new.
>> Anonymous
>>231878
A: this lens didnt get dropped at a wedding on the weekend and is now sitting at Nikon.

(i dropped my 70-200/2.8 VR and it landed on the sandstone edge of a fountain, and bounced, then rolled away from the water)
does it make you feel sad that i trashed a lens worth more than most of you people's kit?
>> Anonymous
>>231947
actually it makes me laugh you're using such an expensive lens for wedding photography :D
>> Anonymous
>>231971

I don't know what you mean? A 70-200 2.8 is a standard lens for wedding photography in most kits.
>> Anonymous
>>231978
Anonymous is too busy "shitsux"ing everything to understand what being a paid professional is about.
>> Anonymous
>>231947
Nope. I wish I was next to you so I could have seen the look on your face.
>> Anonymous
>>232181
i was setting up a group shot, about 60 people saw the look on my face.
i loudly exclaimed "thats gotta hurt" and carried on. whats done is done.
>> Anonymous
got t his badmothafucka.
.
$900 at B&H
.
.
bitch is heavy
>> Anonymous
im rocking a d300/80-200 AFS. Its the same lens you have there, except with the faster focusing.

>>231735
Is obviously a retard whos never used either lens.
>> Anonymous
>>232614

is obvioulsy a poorfag who can't afford the better lens

enjoy your shit lens
>> Anonymous
>>232616
I've owned both. I swapped out the 70-200 VR with the 80-200 AFS because VR was unnecessary for sports photography.

Enjoy your 75-300, poser.
>> Anonymous
80-200 ED is now a meme
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>232621

sorry you like shitty lenses, mate

enjoy your shit lens, really

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)30 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2007-05-28 18:08:02F-Numberf/6.3Exposure Time1/60 secExposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure ModeAutoFlashFlash, Return DetectedFocal Length20.00 mmMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i herd someone say good glass?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePhase OneCamera ModelP 45Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2677Image Height1890Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:04:05 15:11:07ISO Speed Rating50Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width602Image Height426
>> Anonymous
>>232632
And yet you don't know the 80-200s are pro tele zooms.

What do you think pros used before 2003, noob?
>> Anonymous
>>232645

did i say it wasn't pro grade?

no

i said it was shit compared to the 70-200, if you can't admit it then you're just being butthurt

fucking idiot
>> Anonymous
>>232649
Its the exact same freaking lens minus VR!

The 80-200 D is a significant downgrade on both focus speed and VR, but not optical quality or build.

The 80-200 AFS, which is somewhat rarer, is the exact same lens as the 70-200 VR minus the VR.

You not knowing that is just fucking awesome.
>> Anonymous
>>232651

you being butthurt over your shitty excuse of a lens is awesome
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
The 80-200 AF-D is the one still sold, and has optically inferior versions. (One Ring, and the first 2 ring model I believe were a different lens design) The newest 2 ring version is arguably as good as the more modern lenses. However I still believe the 70-200 and 80-200 af-s are better. (From what I've seen)

The 80-200 Af-s on the other hand is one of Nikon's best lens, and doesn't have the IQ problems the 70-200 VR has on the D3 and D700 bodies.

I own the 80-200 af-s and have only good things to say about the lens, It even pairs up with the TC14e quite nicely.
It still sells for 1000$ Used though, as it is still a very popular alternative for the 70-200 VR, as for most sports the VR doesn't matter.
>> Anonymous
sorry, im not a troll, but you're going to think this is a trollish question.

what does "vr" mean? "afs?" i know that IS means image stabilization, but I'm having a hard time with some of the other terms.
>> Anonymous
>>232675
VR = Nikon's term for IS.

AF-S = AF-I in older lenses = the lens focuses with a motor in the lens itself, and not the motor in the body. (D40, D40x, D60 do not have a motor in the body and need AF-S or AF-I to autofocus.)

One of the few good pages of information on Ken Rockwell's site is the one where he runs all of the Nikon jargon and lens mounting differences down for people.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
you're all a bunch of idiots, except for heavyweather and vincent, and that's only because they post usually awesome photos.