Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II

[slakjaw]

This is an awesome lens. that is all.

[GH85Carrera]

Yes it is. We use that on our D3.

[porsche4life]

This is an expensive lens.....

[slakjaw]

yes it cost me a lot of money. but its worth it.

[gassy]

I just picked up the Nikkor 80 - 400 VR a couple months ago and am learning how to shoot with it. Sports mainly, which is a b!tch.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by gassy

I just picked up the Nikkor 80 - 400 VR a couple months ago and am learning how to shoot with it. Sports mainly, which is a b!tch.

Wow, now THAT'S an expensive lens.

It's too bad you don't have a Canon. Then you'd have some really great lenses as options!!

j/k

[maxnine11]

The Nikon 70-200mm VR 2.8 is a great lens. (Both the first version and the new version)

masraum - the 70-200 is a more expensive lens than the 80-400mm

Originally Posted by gassy View Post
I just picked up the Nikkor 80 - 400 VR a couple months ago and am learning how to shoot with it. Sports mainly, which is a b!tch.

Yes, shooting sports ( or trying to short sports) with a 80-400mm would be, ugh, 'trying' . (definitely not its forte )

[GH85Carrera]

With the full size sensor on the D3, the 200 mm lens is not a huge telephoto. It would not work very well as a sports lens, it is just not long enough. It focuses real fast however. It is ideal for our needs.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by maxnine11

The Nikon 70-200mm VR 2.8 is a great lens. (Both the first version and the new version)

masraum - the 70-200 is a more expensive lens than the 80-400mm

Ah, I figured that since they were both VR, but then that fast 2.8 on the 70-200 does elevate the price a tad.

I'd love to get a fast telephoto or fast zoom. Since I've got a Canon, mine would probably be one of the Canon "L" lenses. As it is, I find that I'd rather shoot with my 50 f/1.8 than with my regular zoom if possible. About the only time I go with a zoom is if I need really wide or telephoto. I guess you could take the automotive saying "there's no substitute for cubic inches" and translate that to cameras "there's no substitute for square inches"

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by masraum

Ah, I figured that since they were both VR, but then that fast 2.8 on the 70-200 does elevate the price a tad.

I'd love to get a fast telephoto or fast zoom. Since I've got a Canon, mine would probably be one of the Canon "L" lenses. As it is, I find that I'd rather shoot with my 50 f/1.8 than with my regular zoom if possible. About the only time I go with a zoom is if I need really wide or telephoto. I guess you could take the automotive saying "there's no substitute for cubic inches" and translate that to cameras "there's no substitute for square inches"

Cubic dollars will fix automotive or camera needs.

We sometimes shoot night time football games. Flying over, shooting at 1,000 of a second we need that F2.8

[porsche4life]

But the handheld glass is the cheap glass at your place glen....

[GH85Carrera]

Oh heck yea. The other lens in the airplane weighs over 150 lbs and costs more than a new 911 Turbo.

[AFC-911]

Yep, they're pricey all right. There's a used 70-200 2.8 VR in my area for $1725.

I'd consider it, but I just bought a Sigma 10-20.

[RWebb]

maybe I'll stick with my pinhole camera

[Cdnone1]

Video: How to make a digital pinhole camera - thestar.com

This was very interesting to watch

Steve