D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
RudyPohl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,936
Like?
D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
9 months ago

After spending a day at the wildlife preserve and cutting the feet off of many of my wolf shots because they were simply too close for my 300/F4, I decided that I needed something a little wider and shorter for those occasions.

I did the research and found that for DX cameras the new version 70-200 f2.8 has almost no improvements and the old version 1 is virtually identical... The improvements were mostly for FX cameras. Cost difference... VRII with tax is $2400, I got a mint shape barely used VRI for $1000, saved $1400 for almost the same lens. Ask me if I'm a happy camper. Yep!

Cheers,

Rudy

Nikon D7100
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Brev00
Senior MemberPosts: 5,610Gear list
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

That does seem like the perfect antidote to your framing situations.  I am sure you will find other uses for it besides wolves.  In fact, you are now equipped to really explore genres.  I have started a pool.  You will have a second body by Christmas.  Maybe a used 300S.

 Brev00's gear list:Brev00's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX II Tamron AF 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iain G Foulds
Senior MemberPosts: 1,089
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

Rudy: I'm excited for you. It's the best balanced range for a single lens.

I was never more relieved than to get rid of my 300mm for the 70-200 F4. Photography became fun again.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Pretty different...edit
In reply to Iain G Foulds, 9 months ago

Iain G Foulds wrote:

Rudy: I'm excited for you. It's the best balanced range for a single lens.

I was never more relieved than to get rid of my 300mm for the 70-200 F4. Photography became fun again.

The 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 VRI are actually pretty different in many ways. I think I would certainly trade a new f4 version for the older f2.8 version (if in good shape) given a choice. Both are very fine lenses though

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,292Gear list
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

The 70-200 f2.8 VR is very slightly less sharp on a D7100 at 200mm and f5.6 than the 70-200 f2.8 VR II is at f4, but the difference is that it really is 200mm. The "focus breathing" of the VR2 is not something you would generally want for wildlife. Enjoy the bright viewing of the lens Rudy, but stop it down when you're shooting at 200mm. 135mm or less it's sharp wide open.

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iain G Foulds
Senior MemberPosts: 1,089
Like?
Re: Pretty different...edit
In reply to Mako2011, 9 months ago

Mako: Definitely considering the trade myself. The extra stop of light should be a worthwhile advantage for early mornings.

If money were no object (in a photographer's fantasy world) would the VR2 be a worthwhile advantage?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JimPearce
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,292Gear list
Like?
By the way Rudy...
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

I don't shoot captives (No attitude, just a personal choice.) or generally comment on them, but here's an exemplary set of photos my buddy Richard shot at one of Ray Barlow's workshops with the 70-200 VR and D7100: http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=161&topic_id=165607&mesg_id=165607&page= .

-- hide signature --

Jim

 JimPearce's gear list:JimPearce's gear list
Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
herbymel
Senior MemberPosts: 3,499Gear list
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

Good luck with it Rudy...look forward to seeing what you come up with. If it weren't for it being soft in the corners on the D800 I'd also consider it. I've been running some tests with the 80-200 and I believe it needs to go in for some cleaning or servicing, but after 20+ years of use, is that much of a surprise.. Of course my hands have gotten more of a shake to them in those years too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Re: Pretty different...edit
In reply to Iain G Foulds, 9 months ago

Iain G Foulds wrote:

Mako: Definitely considering the trade myself. The extra stop of light should be a worthwhile advantage for early mornings.

If money were no object (in a photographer's fantasy world) would the VR2 be a worthwhile advantage?

The only issue with the VRII version on DX is the focus breathing issue, if memory serves. I really do not see it as a problem that isn't easily accounted for. VRII is better than VRI  (stabilization wise) and the VRII version handles TC's better as  well. I would trade my VRI for a VRII version if I had the cash. YMMV.  Right now I'm saving for a 300mm F2.8 so can't. May never make enough for that either so will have a drink while I work on it

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
1971_M5
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,902Gear list
Like?
Pretty excited...
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

Just wait until you start shooting and LOOKING at the results.  You will be amazed.  I've had this lens for 6 years and it is my go-to piece of glass.  Have fun!  You will.

 1971_M5's gear list:1971_M5's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tommiejeep
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,772
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

Rudy, congrats, great lens.  I've had both I and II for the past few years. Often shot them together on FX and Dx for sport.  I bought the VR f4 to shed some weight so finally agreed to sell the vrI to a friend ( I hate selling great lenses ) .

You'll love the lens, very versitle for many uses ; events, portraits 'street'.

Have fun (or even more fun )

-- hide signature --

Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong
Tom
http://taja.smugmug.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RudyPohl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,936
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

I owe a HUGE favour to Jim Pearce and to Humanoid (Ray) for bugging me and constantly hassling the crud out of me about getting a high quality lens for my wildlife photography. At times I was even a bit annoyed at their insistence that while the 70-300 VR was a good lens it was not in the same class, quality-wise, as the 300/F4.

What they and others did not know at the time was that the previous year I took a major $1600 beating on a brand new high-end Canon DSLR rig that I bought for our video business and it turned out to be the wrong camera for our operations. I had to admit that I made a big mistake, sold the rig, and took the financial loss. Thank goodness for an understanding wife! Anyway, it really put me off big dollar camera gear purchases and why I bought a $550 Panasonic FZ200.

After recovering from the shock I upgraded to the D7100 after 7 months. However, after shooting 15,000 shots with my 70-300 VR and then getting my 300/F4 and seeing the big difference a great lens can make in the image detail, colour, contrast and bokeh, I was absolutely sold on the value of quality lenses. Don't let anyone tell there's not a big difference - there is! Thanks Jim and Ray for being so freakin' honest!

Being an inveterate cheapskate and still smarting a bit from my Canon fiasco, I decided that when it comes to lenses I would never buy new again, especially here in Ontario, Canada where we get nailed another 13% in taxes on top of everything we buy. So I decided to get good at doing the research and finding low-usage, mint-shape gear for a great price. If I were to buy my two high quality lenses and my Nikon 1.4 TC, here in Canada they would have cost me $4500, but by buying them used and in mint shape I got them for a total of $2400 - that's a huge difference for a small-time, self-employed working stiff like me who is just one year from retirement with a pension that's nothing to write home about... if you know what I mean?

Anyways, my Wolf outting last week got me to turn a bit of a corner in my photography journey... I just sold my first wildlife print for $150 and now I'm hooked. So I'm taking the plunge at seeing if I can actually sell some of my work in what appears to be an incredibly over-crowded, over-saturated, highly-competitive market. Well see how it goes, I intend to have great deal of fun finding out!!!

Cheers friends,

Rudy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photoholiko
Contributing MemberPosts: 513Gear list
Like?
Re: By the way Rudy...
In reply to JimPearce, 9 months ago

Amazing shots, thanks for posting!

 photoholiko's gear list:photoholiko's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Olympus PEN E-PL1 Canon EOS 70D Epson PhotoPC 850 Zoom Minolta DiMAGE 7 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AikenMooney
Contributing MemberPosts: 920
Like?
Re: By the way Rudy...
In reply to JimPearce, 9 months ago

Thanks for the link Jim. I do BIF and enjoy seeing others.

Congrats Rudy, you got a great lens. For DX cameras I don't think you would see much difference, if any, between ver 1 & 2. Great price as I got 50% more than that for mine and the new owner was very happy.

I did switch to ver 2 for my D3. The ver 1 was fine on my D2x but on full frame there is a difference. On my DX cameras I could really see no difference. Well except for the $ of course and that is in your favor.

May your next image be your best.

For those of you with the 70-300 please don't despair, with good technique you too can get very good images. $ for $ I think it may be the best lens from Nikon.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RudyPohl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,936
Like?
Re: By the way Rudy...
In reply to AikenMooney, 9 months ago

AikenMooney wrote:

Thanks for the link Jim. I do BIF and enjoy seeing others.

Congrats Rudy, you got a great lens. For DX cameras I don't think you would see much difference, if any, between ver 1 & 2. Great price as I got 50% more than that for mine and the new owner was very happy.

I did switch to ver 2 for my D3. The ver 1 was fine on my D2x but on full frame there is a difference. On my DX cameras I could really see no difference. Well except for the $ of course and that is in your favor.

May your next image be your best.

For those of you with the 70-300 please don't despair, with good technique you too can get very good images. $ for $ I think it may be the best lens from Nikon.

Hi Aiken:

Thanks for your kind words and yes I agree totally regarding the 70-300 VR, $ for $ it is the best lens Nikon makes. Up until recently all my shots, some which were pretty darn good, wre shot with this lens.

In fact, just as a test to see who would notice the difference I intentionally posted a couple of Green Heron shots a couple months ago at a time when everyone here knew that I was exclusively using the Nikon 300/F4 for all my wildlife shots, however these shot were taken earlier with my 70-300 VR. The EXIF data gave it away, but no one noticed, the 70-300 VR shots were good enough that everyone simply assumed the lens used was the 300/F4. Here's the post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3550433#forum-post-52215342

So no, 70-300 VR owners, don't despair, it's a great lens, but the best it can produce is nowhere near the best that the 300/F4 can produce under ideal circumstance.

Cheers,

Rudy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
herbymel
Senior MemberPosts: 3,499Gear list
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

RudyPohl wrote:

I owe a HUGE favour to Jim Pearce and to Humanoid (Ray) for bugging me and constantly hassling the crud out of me about getting a high quality lens for my wildlife photography. At times I was even a bit annoyed at their insistence that while the 70-300 VR was a good lens it was not in the same class, quality-wise, as the 300/F4.

What they and others did not know at the time was that the previous year I took a major $1600 beating on a brand new high-end Canon DSLR rig that I bought for our video business and it turned out to be the wrong camera for our operations. I had to admit that I made a big mistake, sold the rig, and took the financial loss. Thank goodness for an understanding wife! Anyway, it really put me off big dollar camera gear purchases and why I bought a $550 Panasonic FZ200.

After recovering from the shock I upgraded to the D7100 after 7 months. However, after shooting 15,000 shots with my 70-300 VR and then getting my 300/F4 and seeing the big difference a great lens can make in the image detail, colour, contrast and bokeh, I was absolutely sold on the value of quality lenses. Don't let anyone tell there's not a big difference - there is! Thanks Jim and Ray for being so freakin' honest!

Being an inveterate cheapskate and still smarting a bit from my Canon fiasco, I decided that when it comes to lenses I would never buy new again, especially here in Ontario, Canada where we get nailed another 13% in taxes on top of everything we buy. So I decided to get good at doing the research and finding low-usage, mint-shape gear for a great price. If I were to buy my two high quality lenses and my Nikon 1.4 TC, here in Canada they would have cost me $4500, but by buying them used and in mint shape I got them for a total of $2400 - that's a huge difference for a small-time, self-employed working stiff like me who is just one year from retirement with a pension that's nothing to write home about... if you know what I mean?

Anyways, my Wolf outting last week got me to turn a bit of a corner in my photography journey... I just sold my first wildlife print for $150 and now I'm hooked. So I'm taking the plunge at seeing if I can actually sell some of my work in what appears to be an incredibly over-crowded, over-saturated, highly-competitive market. Well see how it goes, I intend to have great deal of fun finding out!!!

Cheers friends,

Rudy

Problem is now Jim is going to convince you to buy a 500 f4 

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
StillLearning
Senior MemberPosts: 1,877
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

I have the VR1 with D7100.  I was pleasantly surprised to see how well it held up on the D7100.  I use it for people and not landscape so corners aren't a concern.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RudyPohl
Senior MemberPosts: 2,936
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to herbymel, 9 months ago

herbymel wrote:

RudyPohl wrote:

I owe a HUGE favour to Jim Pearce and to Humanoid (Ray) for bugging me and constantly hassling the crud out of me about getting a high quality lens for my wildlife photography. At times I was even a bit annoyed at their insistence that while the 70-300 VR was a good lens it was not in the same class, quality-wise, as the 300/F4.

What they and others did not know at the time was that the previous year I took a major $1600 beating on a brand new high-end Canon DSLR rig that I bought for our video business and it turned out to be the wrong camera for our operations. I had to admit that I made a big mistake, sold the rig, and took the financial loss. Thank goodness for an understanding wife! Anyway, it really put me off big dollar camera gear purchases and why I bought a $550 Panasonic FZ200.

After recovering from the shock I upgraded to the D7100 after 7 months. However, after shooting 15,000 shots with my 70-300 VR and then getting my 300/F4 and seeing the big difference a great lens can make in the image detail, colour, contrast and bokeh, I was absolutely sold on the value of quality lenses. Don't let anyone tell there's not a big difference - there is! Thanks Jim and Ray for being so freakin' honest!

Being an inveterate cheapskate and still smarting a bit from my Canon fiasco, I decided that when it comes to lenses I would never buy new again, especially here in Ontario, Canada where we get nailed another 13% in taxes on top of everything we buy. So I decided to get good at doing the research and finding low-usage, mint-shape gear for a great price. If I were to buy my two high quality lenses and my Nikon 1.4 TC, here in Canada they would have cost me $4500, but by buying them used and in mint shape I got them for a total of $2400 - that's a huge difference for a small-time, self-employed working stiff like me who is just one year from retirement with a pension that's nothing to write home about... if you know what I mean?

Anyways, my Wolf outting last week got me to turn a bit of a corner in my photography journey... I just sold my first wildlife print for $150 and now I'm hooked. So I'm taking the plunge at seeing if I can actually sell some of my work in what appears to be an incredibly over-crowded, over-saturated, highly-competitive market. Well see how it goes, I intend to have great deal of fun finding out!!!

Cheers friends,

Rudy

Problem is now Jim is going to convince you to buy a 500 f4

HERBY! Wash your mouth out with soap, and for goodness sake don't ever let my wife hear you saying that!!!!!

Rudy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
parkie
Forum MemberPosts: 93
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

Congrats on your purchase Rudy. I too recently purchased the 70 - 200 (VRII though) for the very same reasons you had, the reach of the 300 was too much at times.

I attended one of Barlow's workshops and everyone had 200 or less so I found myself positioned too far back and had to really work the angles to avoid getting other photographers in my BIF shots. In fact some of Iain's comments got me thinking about it a while ago and though I've just used it a couple of times, I'm liking it's flexibility.

I'll still keep the 300 f4 though as I think it's a stellar lens for the price and I still have situations where it will be the go to lens. If I do get rid of it, it will only be for the 2.8 version. That's a ways off though.

-- hide signature --

Rich

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
herbymel
Senior MemberPosts: 3,499Gear list
Like?
Re: D7100 owner just bought a 70-200mm f2.8 VRI ... pretty excited
In reply to RudyPohl, 9 months ago

RudyPohl wrote:

herbymel wrote:

RudyPohl wrote:

I owe a HUGE favour to Jim Pearce and to Humanoid (Ray) for bugging me and constantly hassling the crud out of me about getting a high quality lens for my wildlife photography. At times I was even a bit annoyed at their insistence that while the 70-300 VR was a good lens it was not in the same class, quality-wise, as the 300/F4.

What they and others did not know at the time was that the previous year I took a major $1600 beating on a brand new high-end Canon DSLR rig that I bought for our video business and it turned out to be the wrong camera for our operations. I had to admit that I made a big mistake, sold the rig, and took the financial loss. Thank goodness for an understanding wife! Anyway, it really put me off big dollar camera gear purchases and why I bought a $550 Panasonic FZ200.

After recovering from the shock I upgraded to the D7100 after 7 months. However, after shooting 15,000 shots with my 70-300 VR and then getting my 300/F4 and seeing the big difference a great lens can make in the image detail, colour, contrast and bokeh, I was absolutely sold on the value of quality lenses. Don't let anyone tell there's not a big difference - there is! Thanks Jim and Ray for being so freakin' honest!

Being an inveterate cheapskate and still smarting a bit from my Canon fiasco, I decided that when it comes to lenses I would never buy new again, especially here in Ontario, Canada where we get nailed another 13% in taxes on top of everything we buy. So I decided to get good at doing the research and finding low-usage, mint-shape gear for a great price. If I were to buy my two high quality lenses and my Nikon 1.4 TC, here in Canada they would have cost me $4500, but by buying them used and in mint shape I got them for a total of $2400 - that's a huge difference for a small-time, self-employed working stiff like me who is just one year from retirement with a pension that's nothing to write home about... if you know what I mean?

Anyways, my Wolf outting last week got me to turn a bit of a corner in my photography journey... I just sold my first wildlife print for $150 and now I'm hooked. So I'm taking the plunge at seeing if I can actually sell some of my work in what appears to be an incredibly over-crowded, over-saturated, highly-competitive market. Well see how it goes, I intend to have great deal of fun finding out!!!

Cheers friends,

Rudy

Problem is now Jim is going to convince you to buy a 500 f4

HERBY! Wash your mouth out with soap, and for goodness sake don't ever let my wife hear you saying that!!!!!

Rudy

Could be worse...could be suggesting the 600, or 400 2.8...if I yell it loud enough...maybe the wife will hear me telling you to get both  Then again...we don't need to be reading your obit..

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads