Reading mode: Light Dark

D300 & 70-200 @ 2.8: I'm impressed! (pics)

Go to last post
J

JMacedo

Senior Member
Messages
2,336
Reaction score
1
Location
Bangkok, TH
Hi,

Bought a 70-200VR few days ago and yesterday had the pleasure of spending some time with it and I'm really well impressed! Wow! D300 & 70-200VR what a combination! Love the thin DOF and the sharpness.

I heard so many good things about this legendary lens... They are all true!

All @ 2.8, no PP

















--
Kind Regards,

Jorge Macedo
http://www.shotsandstuff.com

 
Nor so heavy, but seriously on a D300 the range you get is well worth it. A DX version would be interesting and worth a gamble IMHO.

Nice images Jorge

Mike
 
Thanks Dez. I know you have that range covered... but I can't imagine lens size being a problem for you... I know sooner or later you'll buy one! Just kidding.

Love sightseeing NYC through your lens!
--
Kind Regards,

Jorge Macedo
http://www.shotsandstuff.com

 
True : beautiful pictures that show the control the lens ( camera?) allows over DOF.
Well done!
--
Younes ( Paris, FR)
K100D, 70-300,18-55
 
@Dez

You're right. I have the same set. A weekend Paris with your backpack loaded with the gear. Complaining about the weight. But coming home and see the results on your 22" screen do you forget everything ;-)
--

D200 | D300 | MDB-10 | 50 mm f/1.8 | 17-55 mm f/2.8 |70-200 mm VR f/2.8 | TC-17EII | Tokina 12-24 mm f/4.0 | SB800
 
JMacedo said:
Thanks Dez. I know you have that range covered... but I can't imagine
lens size being a problem for you... I know sooner or later you'll
buy one! Just kidding.

Love sightseeing NYC through your lens!
Click to expand...
If Nikon releases a new revision, smaller & lighter, I would consider it! ;)

Thanks Jorge. You've got top-notch gear now with your D300. Nice few upgrades you made with your new lenses.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com
 
Fletch147 said:
The 17-55 2.8 :-).....well maybe 2?? 12-24? :-)

Nothing gets in the way of him and that lens!!!
:-D
Click to expand...
Hey man, I have 3!..........if you want to call the 18-200 VR a lens :P

Actually, I'm very interested in the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I've used the 24-70 and it is great but as you know, you lose width on the D300, that's where I say to myself that "you can't part with the 17-55".

Again, a new lighter & smaller version of the 70-200 would be desired as well as a new revision of the Nikkor 85mm f/.14!
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com
 
Ha!! yeah the great 18-200 (i love it ;-))

I've just got the 70-200 2.8 VR, with a 30 day money back guarantee if I change my mind. I have issues at the moment, this is the second 70-200 Ive had (sold other one 2 years ago and regret it, it was very sharp!)

It is fairly heavy, I also dream about the 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200, BUT for me lens changing is a pain and the 17-55 makes up for the 14-24 / 24-70 combo, ok you lose 3mm & 15mm for say £2000.....thats how i look at it. the 17-55 cover NEARLY both these 2 lenses. 55mm is still great for portraits, and 17mm is virtually wide enough for me, BUT I dont live in NY!! LOL.

While I have a DX camera, the 17-55 will stop me buying the 14-24 / 24-70 combo, plus I cant afford it yet!! :-)

The 70-200 though is a great compliment for the 17-55, I personally never miss the gap from 55-70.

I just have to test more today, as my copy isnt convincing me for £1200!!

I may well send it back and get the lighter 70-300 VR, plus have the extra 100mm at the end. i will see later.

--



Cheers, FletchUK/Fletch147
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/
 
Fletch147 said:
Ha!! yeah the great 18-200 (i love it ;-))

I've just got the 70-200 2.8 VR, with a 30 day money back guarantee
if I change my mind. I have issues at the moment, this is the second
70-200 Ive had (sold other one 2 years ago and regret it, it was very
sharp!)

It is fairly heavy, I also dream about the 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200, BUT
for me lens changing is a pain and the 17-55 makes up for the 14-24 /
24-70 combo, ok you lose 3mm & 15mm for say £2000.....thats how i
look at it. the 17-55 cover NEARLY both these 2 lenses. 55mm is still
great for portraits, and 17mm is virtually wide enough for me, BUT I
dont live in NY!! LOL.

While I have a DX camera, the 17-55 will stop me buying the 14-24 /
24-70 combo, plus I cant afford it yet!! :-)

The 70-200 though is a great compliment for the 17-55, I personally
never miss the gap from 55-70.

I just have to test more today, as my copy isnt convincing me for
£1200!!

I may well send it back and get the lighter 70-300 VR, plus have the
extra 100mm at the end. i will see later.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with your 70-200? Not sharp enough? Personally, since you already own the lens (and it's your second one), I wouldn't sell it for the 70-300. That would be such a downgrade. What are you using the 70-200 for?

I agree with some of your statements above. The 17-55mm works best on the D300 and I won't part with it. I'm enjoying it too much and although, the 14-24 is great (I used it at a parade one day), I already own the Nikkor 12-24 which covers that range.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com
 
Fletch147 said:
I may well send it back and get the lighter 70-300 VR, plus have the
extra 100mm at the end. i will see later.
Click to expand...
I have both and they are 2 different lenses I think you would regret replacing one with the other. The 70-300 is an OK performer out to 200 and is acceptable at 300 if you can stop down a bit but it's some distance away from the 70-200 in terms of quality. I have it as a travel lens but usually it's part of the kit I keep in my car for those just in case moments.
 
DezM said:
JMacedo said:
Thanks Dez. I know you have that range covered... but I can't imagine
lens size being a problem for you... I know sooner or later you'll
buy one! Just kidding.

Love sightseeing NYC through your lens!
Click to expand...
If Nikon releases a new revision, smaller & lighter, I would consider
it! ;)
Click to expand...
I'm sure they will release a new revision or a lens with a similar focal lenght but with the newer VRII and coatings, the 70-200 is a magic lens in terms of subject isolation but can't touch the colours produced by the newer 24-70 2.8 IMHO and I think is performing better on DX than on FF. Too bad I'm a kid and couldn't wait any longer... sigh! lol
DezM said:
Thanks Jorge. You've got top-notch gear now with your D300. Nice few
upgrades you made with your new lenses.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dez.
DezM said:
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com
Click to expand...
--
Kind Regards,

Jorge Macedo
http://www.shotsandstuff.com

 
Fletch147 said:
The 17-55 2.8 :-).....well maybe 2?? 12-24? :-)

Nothing gets in the way of him and that lens!!!
:-D
Click to expand...
Eh Eh Eh... I guess you are right. I was envious of his pics when he first came with his 17-55 pics and I was having a hard time with the Tamron 17-50 on the D300 to get noise-free and sharp images. He has some of the sharpest images I ever seen taken with his 17-55 or any other lens!
Fletch147 said:
--



Cheers, FletchUK/Fletch147
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/
Click to expand...
--
Kind Regards,

Jorge Macedo
http://www.shotsandstuff.com

 
These are excellent images Jorge - color, contrast, bokeh - all well done & compelling.

I had the 70-200 for a week and like yourself was very impressed. However, I sent it back for two reasons. 1) found it a bit difficult to justify the money (1650 USD) and 2) The rumor mill 'says' a new 70-200 will be released sometime in the not too distant future.

Now the crazy part: I'm doing a month of shooting on California's central coast armed with the 14-24 & 24-70. I quickly saw the need for 70-200 glass. So I purchased the 80-200 2.8. It lacks VR (which worked very well on the 70-200) but optically it's about the same. And of course the 80-200 is about half the price.

Life is choices - I know you're gonna love that 70-200 VR (it's mates beautifully with the D300). Please post more images soon.
joe
 
JMacedo said:
Fletch147 said:
The 17-55 2.8 :-).....well maybe 2?? 12-24? :-)

Nothing gets in the way of him and that lens!!!
:-D
Click to expand...
Eh Eh Eh... I guess you are right. I was envious of his pics when he
first came with his 17-55 pics and I was having a hard time with the
Tamron 17-50 on the D300 to get noise-free and sharp images. He has
some of the sharpest images I ever seen taken with his 17-55 or any
other lens!
Click to expand...
Thanks. I guess I got lucky with a very good copy and it agrees with my camera :D

.....but Jorge & Jonathan, I've seen crisp, sharp images from your versions as well.
--
Dez

http://photos.dezmix.com
 
Joe Josephs said:
These are excellent images Jorge - color, contrast, bokeh - all well
done & compelling.
I had the 70-200 for a week and like yourself was very impressed.
However, I sent it back for two reasons. 1) found it a bit difficult
to justify the money (1650 USD) and 2) The rumor mill 'says' a new
70-200 will be released sometime in the not too distant future.
Click to expand...
Joe, I think you are right, it makes all sence to have a new release to replace the 70-200vr, specially to improve the performance of that lens on FF bodies but I couldn't resist any longer and bought it :)
Joe Josephs said:
Now the crazy part: I'm doing a month of shooting on California's
central coast armed with the 14-24 & 24-70. I quickly saw the need
for 70-200 glass. So I purchased the 80-200 2.8. It lacks VR (which
worked very well on the 70-200) but optically it's about the same.
And of course the 80-200 is about half the price.
Click to expand...
I've heard very good comments about the 80-200 2.8, also I've seen superb photos taken with this lens, VR is what I care less in a lens as VR gives me softer images if comparing with the ones with VR off. 14-24, 24-70 & 80-200 2.8 you are off to California with excellent glass!

Thank you so much for the kind comments and have a very nice time in California. Looking forward to see the pics then.

Joe
Joe Josephs said:
Life is choices - I know you're gonna love that 70-200 VR (it's mates
beautifully with the D300). Please post more images soon
joe
Click to expand...
--
Kind Regards,

Jorge Macedo
http://www.shotsandstuff.com

 
DezM said:
Fletch147 said:
The 17-55 2.8 :-).....well maybe 2?? 12-24? :-)

Nothing gets in the way of him and that lens!!!
:-D
Click to expand...
Hey man, I have 3!..........if you want to call the 18-200 VR a lens :P
Click to expand...
The soccer mom deluxe
DezM said:
Actually, I'm very interested in the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I've
used the 24-70 and it is great but as you know, you lose width on the
D300, that's where I say to myself that "you can't part with the
17-55".

Again, a new lighter & smaller version of the 70-200 would be desired
as well as a new revision of the Nikkor 85mm f/.14!
Click to expand...
You want the lens Nikon doesn’t offer, the fabulous 70-200 L F4is.. Exactly half the weight of the canon is & Nikon vr F2.8 versions. Nikon will make one, they have to...Too many Nikon heads are demanding it. Ill be selling my vr when a revised one comes out for FX, ..I don’t care about weight though, any lens that looks that good at F2.8 is keeper in my book.

--
Best
Shaun
http://shaun.zenfolio.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top