File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I lust after the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, and the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. The need for these lenses fills me, and the knowledge that I won't be able to afford them until at least next year is almost a physical pain.

Does anyone here have either of these lenses? What are your thoughts on them, and can I please have them?
>> Anonymous
well, I just bought the old canon 80-200 2.8 L lens.

It's built like a tank but the focal range on a cropped sensor has nice reach (might invest in a 1.4 x multiplier) and I love the 2.8 constant f stop.

but, obviously a completely different lens.
>> Anonymous
that lens is huge! Why the hell do you need it?
>> Anonymous
>>86839

actually 70-200 isn't a ridiculous reach.

it's just huge because it has nice optics.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
A good question raised is why do you need them?

As an owner of both lenses, well i'm a former owner of the 70-200. I can say without doubt that both have fantastic optics, especially the 70-200, i believe that lens has probably the best optical quality out of any Nikkors out there, and I'll even go so far as to say it may even beat out comparable primes in that range.

No shortcuts were made with that lense. It's really good for sports, unless you're on the grandstands shooting a football match, then you'll find the range limited. And for portraiture the focal range and the fast aperture compliments perfectly.

Still, it didn't stop me from selling it to a mate. Main reason? I simply have no use for it. I remember going through all my photos which i have sold or am proud of and checking the EXIF... i whooping 2% were shot beyond the 50mm range.

So i just thought i might as well sell it to a mate (note, if it wasn't to a good friend i probably would have kept it, wanted to give him a helping hand in starting).

The 17-55mm optically is also brilliant... but not necessarily on the shock and awe factor that the 70-200 has.
>> Anonymous
yeah i want the 70-200mm. i shoot swimming events sometimes, and the 70-200 is actually a pretty good focal length. and the 17-55 would be nice for when i shoot bands, although my 50mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/2.8 are good for that, itd be nice to not have to switch when i feel somewhat lazy.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
The 17-55 is now my 'walk around' lens. Unless my arms are really sore or i'm just want a lighter load in which case it'll either be the 35mm f/2 or the 50mm f/1.4 (oh i wish i wish i had the 28mm 1.4)

The 17-55 range covers wide to medium telephoto on APS-C and essentially covers everything i do. Unless i really am in a jiffy to do portraiture in which cause i'll either borrow the 85 1.4 or the 70-200 of that friend (see, i'm a deviant bastard, sell it off but still use it when i need to).

But i digress, the main point i'm trying to make is.

Whilst both lenses are great, why do YOU WANT them? If it's so people see you walking around with a fuck off big lens and give yourself the perception that you're a professional because you carry a 'pro' lens... then you're on the wrong path.

The 18-70mm kit lens is almost on par with the 17-55 nikkor with everything except build quality and aperture. If you need the fast lens, get the Tamron 17-50, i can't stress how great that lens is.

The only thing the 17-55 has over them like i said is the tank like build and marginal optical quality.

Don't fall for the perception that those lens are what you NEED to do real photography, yes they will gain you better image quality, but lens isn't the only factor. And no, i'm not talking photographer, i'm talking maximising it in everyway, steady shot, tripod, ISO, etc etc
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>86848

try the sigma 50mm-150 2.8, it's an APS-C lens so wont work on FX, but i was surprised at how solid it was build wise. It's also much much cheaper than the 70-200 nikkor.

It'll do what you need, and you can always sell it off and get the 70-200 what you can afford it.

I always find faster lenses above f/2 useful for band shots. Even at 2.8, some gigs are dark and i don't like testing the limits of D200's iso... just gotta wait for that D300 i believe.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
The 70-200 f/2.8 VR is fanfuckingtastic for wedding photographers, the three fashion photographers who shoot Nikon 35mm, and sports photographers. If you are not one of those three things, or do not aspire to be one, then forget this lens, because it's way more horsepower than you need. Seriously, unless you're making serious cash moneys with this thing, just don't bother. It's a much better deal to get any of the older 80-200 f/2.8 lenses. They're optically superb, and really just lack VR, which doesn't matter for stopping motion anyways.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is a tank. It's also unbelievably sharp, and a pleasure to use. However, the $500 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is almost as good optically for a fraction of the price.
>> Anonymous
>>86850
the extra reach of the 70-200 is really nice. sometimes you get forced to shoot across the pool because theres just too many people there and you cant get to the spot you want in time. also i was thinking about the 80-200 as a cheaper alternative so yeah. the 17-55 or something similar is lower on my list, but itd be nice for walkaround and band photos when theres enough lighting. 70/80-200 first, d300, then the other is how my list is.
>> Anonymous
I have a 70-200 Vr and it is fantastic. Its everything I hoped it would be. I use it for portrait work and its great.
>> Anonymous
>>86837
I have a nikon 70-200. At 70mm, it's superb, even wide open. At 200mm, wide open isn't great, f/4 is good, f/5.6 is legendary and f/8 is even better. VR is wonderful.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>86928
according to these MTF charts, its pretty damn good wide open at 200mm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70200_28vr/index.htm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
OP here. I'm graduating with a journalism degree and moving into print next year, so hopefully I'll be doing all my own photos. The 17-55 and 70-200 is really de rigueur PJ gear.

It's my major hobby, too, so can you put a price on love? : )

I know having the camera pointed in the right direction at the right time is the key to great frames, but ye gods these lenses would help.

<-- This is the kind of stuff I'm shooting these days, plus a whole bunch of people shots, portraits et al.
>> Falldog
How does the 70-200 compare to the 18-200 in terms of quality?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>86963
ahahahahahahahaha

No comparison. Professional quality that people count on to do their job vs. shitty plastic mount and plastic body that won't take a knock and is used primarily by soccer moms with their lawyer husband's credit card.
>> Anonymous
>>86963

worlds of difference. the 18-200 is a dinky plastic $700 consumer lens. it weighs about one pound.

the 70-200 is a $1700 pro lens that weighs three pounds.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I use both on a daily basis, and when I need to be conspicuous or need the lighter load, I just leave both and take the 50mm f/1.4.

I shoot sports sometimes, and also cover events that happens around town, much like a freelance photog, while it's not giving me monies, but it gives me good practice to have a PJ kinda eye. I cut my teeth handholding an 80-200 f/2.8 and when I had the chance to switch with a mate, I took it. Any of these lenses can take a good banging, heck, I've knocked the 17-55 against doors while walking around without me worrying about it, dropped the 80-200 and popped off the hood, but otherwise it was fine. But if you feel like babying your lenses, any of the other brand F-mount lenses would do. For instance, Sigma's HSM 70-200 is fucking snappy, and their 17-50 is pretty damn good.

Picture quality wise though, you can't go wrong with the Nikkors 2.8s. Hell, even just blindly shooting from below and having the AF point at the center would yield a good picture with my 17-55.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern610Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:10:08 12:26:19Exposure Time1/20 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return Not DetectedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>86965

man no need to hate on the 18-200mm no matter how much it deserves it :D

the 18-200 does a decent job for what it is. IT's the best super zoom out there... it;s great shot while stopped down.
>> ????? !wAHA/GeRU.
>>86965
I've actually dropped my 18-200mm VR and knocked it around a bit. Scared me at first, but it has held up well. I certainly don't want to make that a habit, though.

Shot wide open, the lens rather sucks. Stopped down, it performs well.

I don't own a Nikon 17-55, but I have used one. It's certainly on my list of lenses to get, but then again so is the 400mm f/2.8 VR, and I don't think I'm getting that any time soon.
>> Anonymous
>>86969
Hi, I'm back again.

While I don't wanna knock the 18-200, it has it's own problems. Don't get me wrong, it's rather good for what it is, as a friend uses it alongside me on the same body and almost gets the same shots as mine. Unless he's shooting in really low lighting, he rarely complains, and sometimes we just bump up the ISO and shoot at f/4 or something anyway. The only thing is that as with most plastic zoom lenses, they tend to creep. My 18-135 had creep, but not to the extent of the 18-200. And if you bang it about, there's a 50/50 chance a mechanism falls out of alignment or some such. A friend's Canon 50mm f/1.8 popped out the front element when it fell, but after finnagling it in, it worked, a bit...