Nikon 200 f/2 VR II ?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
JHern
JHern Regular Member • Posts: 115
Re: Nikon 200 f/2 VR II ?

PerfectPoms wrote:

I'm surprised more people don't complain more about the weight of the 200 f2. I sold mine because I didn't use it often enough, and partially because I cursed the weight of that thing almost every time I picked it up.

Now I've got the 120-300 2.8, which is even heavier, and using that lens way too much during the first 20 hours I had it gave me a pinched nerve that left me incapacitated for 7 weeks,

I know the feeling! I got a slipped neck disc after some outings with my 300/2.8, after I had figured out I could fit and carry it in my backpack (stupid!). It was just before a trip to western Canada and Alaska, I had to wear a neck brace the entire time, carried a waist pack with lighter lenses, and just had to deal with the pain as it came and went. I don't want to go through that again, there were times I woke in the middle of the night and there was nothing that helped.

These days, I don't take my 200/2, 300/2.8, or 500/4 out without at least a monopod, and I'm very careful about how I hold it. When I'm not shooting I walk with the pod and camera inverted and gripping from the stout rubbery Gitzo grip, and I change hands occasionally to balance the load...it works pretty well, and I never re-injured my neck. I also regularly do various exercises with modest dumb bells (4 kg only), and that helps build strength and conditioning as well.

 JHern's gear list:JHern's gear list
Nikon D90 Nikon D3S Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D +25 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow