Nikon 70-200mm VR Lens review part 2 The results and conclusion (dombower.com)

[RADCOMJ1]

@valentinwb  No definitely not you should get your friend to sell it to me lol snatch his hand off :)

[1986wake1986]

1:27 david blaine!

[gulfman101]

Dom,

I tried this lens out on a D90 in a camera store recently. I discovered that it had problems auto focusing on subjects that were only about five to 10 feet away. Is this common, or was there something wrong with the lens I tested? I didn't buy it because I thought the AF was in need of repair. Thanks.

[dombower]

@valentinwb what. if you dont buy it ill buy it and then sell it on for 1000 the next day. check it is not a scam as even second hand they come at around 1000

[Jakob1056687]

Nice video!

What the name of the song there play in start of the video:

00:00 to 00:10 ?

/Jakob

[pjos111]

Is this lens not for LOW light areas? Like a concert hall or indoor sports.

[CAJUNNSC]

I'm stressing over purchasing this lens in the newer VR II yet I would not consider it a portrait lens although yes it can do great portraits. There are to many other lens 1/3 the cost that do as well or better. So, why not a review of the lens concerning what it is actually made for? Wildlife & Landscape?

[dombower]

@CAJUNNSC you have checked the blog havent you?

[butlerscabin2008]

Dom can you remove the tripod collar thanks in advance mate

[xtmreef]

Yo Domster

When are you gonna review the Nikon 70-200 AF-S VRII G Zoom-Nikkor ED-IF?

[dombower]

@xtmreef probibly never, cant afford something like that and wont rent it as (if you watch my new channel dombowerphoto) you will see i have bought this lens (second hand) Nikon dont send me stuff for free like some channels

[TheRunningBoy20]

i love the music in the intro wat song anyone know?

[theddygrumo]

so this is not your lens because you just did your unboxing now

[stevemonkey78]

I just sent off for one of these. mpb photographic had one second hand for 1004 pounds. I already got a 17-55 2.8 (which im very impressed with), so i can just pop this one on if i want to be further away. hoping be good for nature, picking people off from a distance ext. only thing is out of the 2 they had i picked one up with no foot because it was in better nick. I was wrong thinking i could just find another foot easily...doh

[gog0000001]

Hi Dom Like your vids.

Sorry disagree about the 70-200mm your right about it being a good lens but I find it very useful for portraits and group shot when you want a nice clean background, great on f2.8 end.... use it all the time.

[dombower]

@gog0000001 group shots???? you must be very very far away from the subject to get a group in the shot, do you not have to shout pretty loudly?

[theddygrumo]

@dombower

so this is not your lens because you just did your unboxing now

[dombower]

@theddygrumo no this was rented, though i said that, maybe at the end

[gog0000001]

@gog0000001

YES! lol sometimes... but gives that lovely feel to the backgound :)

Once again Thanks for the Vids GREAT STUFF!!!!

[ImageXPhoto]

Dom, I love your videos! Thanks for posting them. I do have to wonder what is wrong with your eye sight. lol j/k but the 70-200 blows the 18-200 out of the water. Please do an update now that you have had time to shoot more with it!

[sinoperture]

I've never needed anything but my 85 1.4 for tele work. As I don't shoot sport or animals - don't need anything longer. Much nicer bokeh as well.

[RoundTheBendFilms]

Shots look AMAZING and look like they were actually stills from the movie!

It behaves more as a normal lens on FX haha

[chai12834]

a pinch on your cute cheeks, you are the best! thanks for yet another informative tip!

[casper0125]

i've dropped one of this on a concrete floor from a height of about 4 ft I've lost the camera body (s2 pro) but the lens is still working. the nikon technician just fixed the bayonet mount free of charge

[owendart]

i dont know if im missing something here but why not just go for the sigma its like £600 and it does almost all that this lens does apart from some things but i mean is it worth the extra £1000????

[dombower]

@owendart its a good question, i have also done a review of the sigma, with the nikon you are getting weather proofing so you can take itout in the pouring rain, vibration reduction and faster focus and less chromatic abberation.

[gstringmaffia]

awesome!thank you!

[gstringmaffia]

awesome!! thank you!

[246ruben810]

I got a Pentax 55-200

[vessalio]

I have a nikon 55-200, do u think its a good option to buy a teleconversor?

[dombower]

@vessalio no, and also i dont think a teleconverter will work with that lens, it is usually only the f2.8 lenses that work with tc.

[vessalio]

thanks

[djalex2fou]

Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 II EX HSM??

[dombower]

focus speed go for the sigma, image quality the nikon. lightness go for the sigma, build quality go for the nikon.

[SLRist]

I've owned both lenses, and 18-200 annoyed the heck out of me mainly because it's so slow, and it just can't get the same quality of bokeh or shallow DoF as the 70-200. There is a noticeable difference in IQ between these two lenses to me. If you can't see it, then you'll be happy with the 18-200. That said, when I moved to a D700 from my D300, I began to be irritated by the vignetting on the 70-200. I'm planning to buy the VRII version once the current 'bubbly casting' issue is resolved.

[dombower]

@SLRist yeah the bubble caste issue is really bad, loads of pictures on flickr of people with specks of crap in their brand new lens. not good! 2k for a lens though? i think i would be happy with the old one.

[SLRist]

@dombower happily, prices are now falling after the initial 'frenzy' and are currently £1,700 from most places. Still crazy expensive though, compared to the US where it retails at under $2,300. I'm flying to the States in April, so I might try to bag myself a bargain then if they're in stock anywhere. You can understand why it costs big bucks though. when you see how many glass elements are in it...

[Bonjour43ma]

You're right, this lens is not worth the money if you're mainly shooting your photos outdoors, in good lighting, and don't require fast shutterspeed. The 70-300 VR is a much cheaper alternative which gives you amazing results on an FX body.

Where this lens REALLY shines is when you take it INDOORS. Weddings/Events/Sports - you cannot shoot these without a fast lens when u'r INDOORS.

Is it worth the money? Only if you use it indoors.

[spongebens]

is that David Blaine at 2:43?

[NixxerJixxerWixxer]

This dude must be a fan of Ken Rockwell LOL

18-200? cmon

[dombower]

what are you on about?

[NixxerJixxerWixxer]

You are reviewing the usability of a 70-200 on a crop body, which is pretty much restricted . Attached on a Full-Frame, that's not the case...The 18-200vr is a piece of rubbish that is soft beyond 135mm, terribly slow aperture, has tons of issues like severe distortionand zoom creep, not to mention the horrible color and contrast...

[dombower]

thats the point of the comparison. dont be such a lens snob

[ChrisInCali]

@NixxerJixxerWixxer

The 18-200mm obviously is useless on a FX body, but on DX it's great in good light. The color and contrast are excellent, have you actually used the lens?

[NixxerJixxerWixxer]

I owned one and had to sell it after 3 months, this lens is has lots of distortion

[Jez2008UK]

@NixxerJixxerWixxer

That's absolutely true.

I love Dombower's reviews, but on this one is he really comparing apples with apples.

And sorry Dom, but if you can't tell the difference between an 18-200 and a 70-200, you've got serious problems !!!

The 18-200 has all the issues NixxerJixxerWixxer states - I sent mine back to the dealer after a few weeks with it.

[dombower]

@Jez2008UK where are you getting the idea that i cant tell the difference?

[Jez2008UK]

@dombower

Hi Dom,

No flame intended. I really like your reviews and I'll always keep watching you.

It's just that I had really bad experiences with the 18-200, it's trying to do toooooooo much and is a soft lens.

I'm actually saving up for a 70-200. It's serious glass and there can be no comparision. Yes it is expensive but you get what you pay for.

I can't remember exactly where you say it and I don't want to watch these 2 videos again simply I totally agree with NixxerJixxerWixxer....

[KEBokeh]

Bastard....that's where my lens went....

Jesus Dom...can I be envious much with you holding that lens?

[JaredPolin]

Good luck with the 18-200 in low light situations at 5.6

[FotoLord42]

Just remember: The original 70-200 VR was 190mm at 5 feet away and 195mm at 10 feet away. The new 70-200 is a shocking 128mm at 4.6 feet away and just 138mm at 10 feet away. This is not as good as the original for portraits and event work in some cases. Nikon lies by claiming 4.6 and use of ENTIRE zoom range. But at 4.6 feet away you lose 72mm of reach. This is a fact. I own the new lens and reviewed at usednikon site.

[lorikzzz]

I can't wait to get mine !!!

[georgeakapierz]

I use it on my D3, I ALWAYS use this lens for weddings, paid for itself in a few days :)

[thecreativegeek]

Were did you rent this from what's the shops name thanks

[lorikzzz]

check out part one

[thecreativegeek]

Were did you rent this from what's the name please

Thanks

Cj

[crazyinsanitie]

Hey dom why dont i see you use your d700 anymore?????

[socalcamerapro]

Consider the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8. No VR, but is half the price of the 70-200.

I've had mine about 12 years --used it on film. I had less need for in on the DX bodies (D100 and D70s), but on my D700, it is a joy to use.

Rent one, before you buy. With the high ISO capabilities of the D300/D700/D3 sensors, rarely do I wish I had the VR. For 1/2 the price, I can make do with a monopod, when I need a little more stability.

[crazyinsanitie]

dom your the best keep up the good work BTW which of these two lens would you recommend sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8

[sabana2]

Dom you keep pushing this lens with full frame cams. But it is made for Dx cams. On Fx it shows vignetting,distortion etc. and other probs which can be corrected post processing but it really is more suited for Dx cameras.

[geonlansis]

I own a D300 too Dom, and I get 1.6x more than on a full frame camera. Depends how you see it because this is a zoom lens anyway so it's not really meant to shoot close ups. It's much easier to use because of the VR but Tamron & Sigma are really good too and it forces you to develope skills when it comes to camera shake and is more than half the price. But like you said it...the price...oh boy.

[shimanobait]

The crop on Nikon dx is 1.5 not 1,6!

[geonlansis]

1.5 or 1.6 i wasn't really clear about it before..thanks for the headsup!

[shimanobait]

No problem!

[tadej172]

2:55 hahaha Its also good for dogs xD

You're awsome dude :D

[dtoosh]

Hey Dommer, thanks taking the time to put together these videos. For a videographer like me with ZERO still experience it has been really helpful learning. I got into video by accident really and been working at a news station for about 5 yrs and lighting has become an obsession for me. Still photo language may as well be Chinese to me, but you break down to where even accidental video guys like me can understand. Keep em coming your shirtless bastard! Hahaha.

[dombower]

my pleasure!

[dombower]

who the hell do you tink you are giving comments like that?. blocked!

[tadej172]

what did he say?

[manochapchap]

Tamron 18-270mm

Tamron 28-300mm

Sigma 18-250mm

Nikon 18-200

Which lens is better?

[sletessier]

Jupp, that girl would be me!

[FunGoneInAFlash]

What if you were shooting a low light scene and you wanted to have a relativly fast shutter speed you will love the lens, when your 18-200mm vr f/5-5.6 or whatever it was wouldn't be able to perform the same result without slowing down the shutter speed or raising the iso making the photo very, "grainy"

[FunGoneInAFlash]

i loved that portrait of that girl with the black tinted glasses. I understand where your comming from when you were talking about the expence, but apparently it isn't for you which doesn't mean it is worth the money.

[dombower]

hahaha its not a girl with the black tinted glasses, at 2.42. its a guy (he is norweigen which is kinda girly anyway. ill tell him that later.

[Dwadawkill]

where was the location at the beginning of the video? what a nice place!!

btw nice review

[dombower]

its on edinburgh' royal mile. very tourist heavy

[Dwadawkill]

is the D300 worth upgrading from D200?..

[dombower]

not really. unless your d200 is near the end of its life. it is worth upgrading from the d80. not even the d90 unless you want the faster fps.

[docrjay]

Hey Dom. Why not get a sharp copy of the sigma? A 2.8 zoom is really flexible. And the sigma will do fine if you are patient enough to find a good one.

[dombower]

thinking about it a lot!

[nikonfseries]

sigmas arent that bad, every 1 ive bought are fine

[georgeakapierz]

nice review, I used to have the 70-200mm 2.8, was amazing but really big! Im now using the 24-70 2.8 because the coverage is more suitable for my type of photography.

using with D3. PIN sharp lens.

[GLXLR]

Hey Dom! Always loved your videos and now I have something to ask you.

When you said if it was on a full frame body, why do you think it is easier to use because I was considering getting either the Sigma 70-200mm until I saw your video and you saying "it would probably be more useful on a full frame (Pentax offers a 50-135mm which is = to 70-200mm). Please reply before i make my decision!

[dombower]

When i say it is a bit restrictive i say that because i would be using this lens in situations where distance is not that important like at a wedding or shoots like the one above. if all you are going to be shooting is sports and wild life then it is briliant. (if it were me, i would have it on a fx camera when shooting weddings and a dx camera when shooting sports.)

[jonfletcher147]

I agree with you Dom..I'm on a budget and currently using a D300 / 17-55 combo. I have had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 lens in the past and sold it, due to the cost. I also found the 18-200 VR's images outdoors to be equal to that very heavy (but brilliant) lump of dlass the 70-200!! If I was rich, the 70-200 would be in my bag, but I'm not and the 18-200 is just so useful, and sharp. I'm also about to buy the 70-300VR, now £400still outdoors equal in IQ to the 70-200 in the same range fro f5.6-f11.

[shadowblack1987]

So you find the 18-200 cheap glass to be better than the world famous 70-200?...

Your doing something wrong mate :)

[jonathoncarter]

I rented the 70-200 a few months ago and was seriously impressed with it. Beautifully sharp images, excellent bokeh, and superb on DX cameras. I purchased the 24-70mm 2.8 as it was a more suitable walkaround lens for me.

[blank10123]

Hi dom I was wondering what the music is called at 0:00-0:09 , cheers :)

[Cominacha]

Hi Dom, no it's not worth the money if you don't need FX coverage - unless f2.8 floats your boat. I'm chopping my D300 in for a D700, so I won't have much choice about the expensive glass. My 18-200 has to go, but I'm going to start with the 24-70mm. The 70-200 might come later, but I have the 105mm f2.8 Micro, which is half the price of the 70-20, and perfectly good for portraits. I'm looking forward to grabbing relatively noise-free shots at ISO 3200 instead of limiting myself to ISO 800...

[shadowblack1987]

You will love the D700. I shoot with my D300 and D3 (same sensor as the D700), and i can easily see the difference. Almost noise free at ISO 3200 is amazing. Makes shooting nightclub events a lot easier (and more fun).