Anyone out there using the Nikon.......

[cf73]

Thx all for the feedback. Thats what i expected, i haven't seen any real criticism of the lens anywhere. While its not a 70-200 2.8 VR (my dream lens but out of reach at the moment) it should do for now, seeing that spring & summer are on the way. I'm really hopeful that Nikon will bring out a new version for the 70-200 2.8 VR and / or 80-400 mm VR this year some time. That will then be a tough choice, but its only speculative at the moment.

Thx again, i will decide in the next few days

Rgds.
Martin

Hi Martin,
So glad you put up this thread, I am happy with my lens (I have a D70 to go with it).

But having said that I was extremely dissapointed with some of the results I was getting on the weekend. In the bright light conditions there was no problem (I was using the Active VR setting but may change that next time) but as soon at the light started to drop I was having big problems.

I was also using a monpod for extra stability but had to go down to 1/45 - 1/90th sec using ISO 350. The focal length for most of the shots I was taking was at about 170mm and with the VR which is supposed to give you a 2 stop advantage, I would have thought it would have coped with 1/90th sec better than it did. My shots were blurred. It wont give you the sharpness of a 2.8 lens.

This may of course be down to my panning technique but I was also using these settings as an aircraft was taxiing as well as taking off so I wouldnt have thought my technique was 'that bad'.

All in all I am happy but I am going to find it hard to achieve those low light panning shots, or I need some serious practice. My goal is to have the D300 also and have the 70-200 f2.8 on there. Instead of the 70-300VR I nearly bought the 80-200 f2.8 (no VR) and I do wish I had gone down that path.

But having said all that, it is a great lens, as long as the conditions are good.

Just my two cents worth but hope it helps.

Cheers
Carl

[seahawk]

Thx all for the feedback. Thats what i expected, i haven't seen any real criticism of the lens anywhere. While its not a 70-200 2.8 VR (my dream lens but out of reach at the moment) it should do for now, seeing that spring & summer are on the way. I'm really hopeful that Nikon will bring out a new version for the 70-200 2.8 VR and / or 80-400 mm VR this year some time. That will then be a tough choice, but its only speculative at the moment.

Thx again, i will decide in the next few days

Rgds.
Martin

Just a remark. The 70-3200VR + 80-200 ED are cheaper together then the 70-200VR alone.

I would also agree with Clark, the 80-200 2.8D is the better buy. Optical quality is up to the 70-200VR, Ok it lacks VR and AF-S but the mechanical focus is still fast enough and it is sharp at 2.8 so VR is hardly needed.

[Diezel]

....You could for example get the 80-200 2.8D and the AF-S 300 4.0 prime to fit your D300. ...

I would say that is a perfect and affordable choice.

Especially when you buy it second hand. The AF 80-200/F2.8 and the AFS 300/F4 are old but very, very fine lenses. No matter how full my bag is when I travel, I will always find a spot for my 80-200. The 300mm/F4 will gladly accept the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs from nikon and Kenko/Tokina.

Roel.

[seahawk]

Same here, I have my 80-200 2.8D since I bought my F90X in the early 90ies and since then it went to every shooting I did.

[shamrock105]

I have been thinking about the 80-200mm too, but at EDDF i feel i do need the extra 100mm up to 300 !! There are also several versions of the 80-200mm, any recommendations ???
I might just go and get both, i could then use them also on my F80 for slides - yes, i am still an old fashioned analog shooter too

Thx again.
Martin

[NeilA330]

I use a D300 and keep it on Aperture Priority, on my Bigma f/8 (change exposure compensation per situation) AWB - again per situation, ISO200 (with MB-D10 on), 21pt AF, JPEG Fine-Large, Sharpening to Normal. I like the results I get from my D300.

As for the 80-200, from things I have heard the 80-200 AFS works well with the 1.4x tc with very little quality loss.

[cf73]

I have been thinking about the 80-200mm too, but at EDDF i feel i do need the extra 100mm up to 300 !! There are also several versions of the 80-200mm, any recommendations ???
I might just go and get both, i could then use them also on my F80 for slides - yes, i am still an old fashioned analog shooter too

Thx again.
Martin

I take most of my photos at Sydney Kingsford Smith and even though I have the 70-300mm I mostly use a focal length of 170-200mm as we can get reasonably close. Therefore for me the 80-200 f2.8 would probably have been a better option as the image quality from what I have been told is far superior.
When I have taken images of planes using the 300mm end of the focal range, they are definately not sharp.
I have found recently that the more dynamic shots are those taken at short focal lengths, my favourite is my new Sigma 10-20mm.

I say get both..!!

Carl

[seahawk]

I have been thinking about the 80-200mm too, but at EDDF i feel i do need the extra 100mm up to 300 !! There are also several versions of the 80-200mm, any recommendations ???
I might just go and get both, i could then use them also on my F80 for slides - yes, i am still an old fashioned analog shooter too

Thx again.
Martin

The one that looks like the current one. Two ring ED version. The older push-pull is a dog when it comes to dustspots on your sensor.

If you do want 300mm I would also like to bring the Sigma 100-300 4.0 DX HSM to your attention.