Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Wobistdu, Oct 23, 2009.
thats actually a decent price. not great, but decent. i sold mine for 1150 + shipping. And mine didnt have a case or anything.
i've been seeing them on CL lately for 800-1000.
70-200's are showing up for $1500 all day long
and at his comment "some say it's sharper than the 70-200"
Are you sure you aren't seeing the AF-D version for $800? That price for the AF-S would be a steal. I'd swoop those up all day and flip them on FM for $400 profit.
Many do feel that the AF-S is sharper than the 70-200 VR. Especially in the corners.
i was going to say i've heard a lot of people say this especially when using it with a full frame camera.
at you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
incoming shit storm thread in...
Some, including myself. It is sharper on FX, and actually feel its a bit snappier to focus. Ive had them both, and the 80-200 AF-S is a well sought after lens. Alot of pros refused to let them go. They are a bit bigger and heavier than the 70-200 VR, but they are on par if not optically better than its older brother.
What else is new.
price is too damn steep, but then again i see them run from 700-1000max
not the AF-S version. you are seeing teh two ring AF-D versions. Huge difference
blow me tits mcgee
and i have never heard these comments. every place i read about the 70-200, they call it the sharpest lens ever released by nikon
sorry man, ive had both and i can assure you my 70-200 is not as sharp as my copy of teh 80-200 AF-S in the corners. i would venture to say maybe teh 70-200 beats it in the center, but the difference is very slight
isn't that why they released the VRII for FX users?
yep, I think there are 3-4 different versions of this lens out there. One, I believe, is a push/pull too.
Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I don't think I'd be nearly as annoyed by all your posts on here if you didn't have such a strong opinion about shit that you clearly have no idea about. If you haven't used it, do us all a favor and refrain from commenting on it.
For whatever it's worth, I've only owned 5 other Nikon lenses besides the 70-200, and 4 of them are sharper than the 70-200. (14-24, 24-70, 85 1.4, 105vr). People who say the 70-200 is the sharpest lens ever made by Nikon are just trying to make themselves feel better about their $1900 purchase.
thats actually a decent deal, he'd prob take 1200 ish for it.
the 80-200 af-s is a champ. i love mine.
exactly, i own all of the lenses you just said and every one of them is sharper than the 2 70-200's ive rented and my friends that I have borrowed.
also, my 400 is sharper but I think that goes without saying
there's plenty of stuff i'll never use that i'll still a hold an opinion on
and sorry i'll take the word of photography sites/sources over some OTAPers
k so i worded it wrong. telephoto... of course great primes will win hands down
400mm is a telephoto.
Holy fucking fail....
The 80-200 AF-S is probably THE BEST non-prime telephoto Nikon has ever made.
$1350 isn't bad at all for that lens.
If you see one for $800, post a link. I'll buy it sight unseen.
You're almost taking the fun out of fucking with you... It's getting too easy...