Lens Rental 70-200VR

I'd like to take a 70-200 VR lens on a topside nature trip but am having trouble justifying the $1600 cost.

I have an 80-200 f2.8 & 300 f4. Any suggestions for renting this lens for 3-4 wks & who from?

I'd like to take a 70-200 VR lens on a topside nature trip but am having trouble justifying the $1600 cost.

I have an 80-200 f2.8 & 300 f4. Any suggestions for renting this lens for 3-4 wks & who from?

I have the same dilemma and I have the same two lenses you own and have used a Bush Hawk camera stock to stabilize them. It also is easier to keep the camera in position with this set up. It uses and Arca Swiss system for mounting but can also use a standard 1/4 thread. Adorama has rentals if you really need the VR.

goodluck

vr

Andy

Jim; check with Sammy's

I own the 70-200 and rarely use it below the 200mm settings and frequently wish it was longer. The disadvantages of the longer nikon lenses are the price and weight. I have had some good results using the kenko 1.5 teleconverter with this lens. I think the VR does help for freehanding the lens.

the 200-400 is really the one to get or try.

I ordered a 200-400 from Sammy's to take on my Alaska trip. Based upon reviews it seemed the perfect lens for the trip. I was prepared to pay the price. But on my camera is was far too heavy and large to consider taking with me. Such a beast would inevitably end up on a shelf if I owned it. So I didn't get it. I would get the 300 F4 which has a good rep and is much smaller and lighter. But it is not VR and I have to doubt how useful it would be hand holding on rocking boats try to shoot whales, etc.

So I'm thinking of a 70-200. I already own the 1.4x teleconverter. Has anyone actually tried this lens with a 2.0x Nikon TC?

I own the 80-400 which is a decent lens but I'm always running up against the slowness of this lens. I don't think it is as sharp a lens as others seem to think as well.

For $250 you can pick up a new Nikkor 55-200 AF-S DX VR lens. I just tried one out - it's not the best glass, but it worked very well, and it's priced right, especially for a trial run.

jcclink: Which version of the 80-200 f2.8 do you have already? The 70-200 is optically very very good, but then again the 80-200 versions were usually no slouches themselves. The VR is a nice addition, but most of the time I use my 70-200 with the VR off and mounted on a decent tripod.

That 1600 will buy you a really good tripod, ball head, ARCA plate system etc etc and you'll still have some change.

I'm mostly thinking about photos of polar bears taken from a zodiac boat. Don't know if I can hand hold my 80-200 steady enough. Plus I may also use a 1.4X with it.

My 80-200 was new in late 2005 (focus & zoom rings). No complaints about the image quality.

The $1600 also buys a nice plane ticket to Bali.

I recently found a 4 wk rental for $275 from "lensprotogo.com". Might be the ticket.

I ordered a 200-400 from Sammy's to take on my Alaska trip. Based upon reviews it seemed the perfect lens for the trip. I was prepared to pay the price. But on my camera is was far too heavy and large to consider taking with me. Such a beast would inevitably end up on a shelf if I owned it. So I didn't get it. I would get the 300 F4 which has a good rep and is much smaller and lighter. But it is not VR and I have to doubt how useful it would be hand holding on rocking boats try to shoot whales, etc.

 

So I'm thinking of a 70-200. I already own the 1.4x teleconverter. Has anyone actually tried this lens with a 2.0x Nikon TC?

 

I own the 80-400 which is a decent lens but I'm always running up against the slowness of this lens. I don't think it is as sharp a lens as others seem to think as well.

quite good images with the 1.5x kenko, better than the 1.4 nikon. I tried the 2.o nikon and all was a bit hazy/fuzzy.

I have owned several Nikon 80~200/2.8s and the 70~200 VR. Whilst the VR was useful I cannot say I found my images THAT much better with the VR on. I now have a Canon 70~200/2.8IS which I find a little better than the Nikon VR, but even so I tend to use it with the IS switched off more often than not. VR/IS takes a bit of getting used to and appreciating when it is best to use the stabilisation facility - and neither VR nor IS is foolproof. $1600 is a lot for a feature like this. You'd need to be very certain that it would improve images to make it worth buying and renting gives you a facility that has a bit of a learning curve. Personally I stick to what you have got and are used to - f/2.8 will give you a pretty decent shutter speed under most conditions.

I have the 70-200 vr, and have used it quite a bit with the 2x Nikon teleconverter for shooting baseball. I'm shooting high shutter speeds on a monopod, so the vr doesn't really come into play. But I have hand held it at shutter speeds as slow as 1/125 (remember, the crop factor makes it a 600mm with the converter). It's an extremely sharp lens. Highly recommended.

Whilst VR/IS can be very good, using either from a zodiac pushes them both to their limits. I have shot 1/8s handhelds with the 70~200 Canon IS lens and they have been sharp from a stable platform when I've been able to brace myself as much as possible, hold my breath, concentrate, etc., etc.. Equally I've shot iceberg details from a zodiac and they have been tricky unless I used a reasonably high speed (at least 1/250s but genreally much higher from memory - I suppose that I could look it up!). VR & IS ARE useful but finding out their capabilities on a trip could be very frustrating, especially if you already have a fast aperture zoom which is optically superb and should be able to achieve decent shutter speeds anyway. From a zodiac, you are moving, the subject might be moving and the camera is moving too - a high shutter speed is fairly good at freezing all these, but VR/IS may or as I found/find, sometimes may not.

True, but if you are shooting from a rocking boat what alternative is better? I use VR and still try to get the shutter speed as high as possible. Thus my interest in the 2.8 70-200. For closer stuff I would use my 105 VR. That is an awesome lens to shoot on land.

Dave - Have you tried the 105VR with a converter? Is the VR still effective? Just got the new 105 a couple months ago but haven't played with it much yet, & didn't really think about taking it on the trip.

pgk - Good points about multiple motion issues. From a small boat everything is moving.

I'm thinking I should just go with my 80-200 & use a fast shutter speed. It would be difficult for me to do much testing with the 70-200VR prior to the trip that would incorporate multiple motion situations.

Thanks all for your comments. Hope the bears are smiling when I arrive.

pgk - Good points about multiple motion issues. From a small boat everything is moving.

Switching the 70-200 VR vibration reduction from normal to "Active" reduces camera shake when taking pictutes from a moving vehicle.

I don't know if it's your answer, but it's a great lens. If you use a 2x, close it down a few stops and it will do away with most of the softness, but not all.