Get Your FREE copy of Top 10 Tips for All Beginning Photographers ...plus Lightroom Develop Presets & Wedding Photography Checklist!


×
Keep Shooting! Photography Assignments (04 Feb 2013)

Be sure to check out the new Keep Shooting! Photography Assignments, every two weeks there is a new one!

cazillo.com/c/forum/keep-shooting-photography-assignments.html

nikon 70-200 lens compatibility

More
5 years 1 month ago #1964 by yoanna
Hi Greg, and thank you for all you do! i have nikon D5100 and heard you suggesting nikon 70-200mm VR lens for portrait shoot, weddings. as i understand that lens would be good for full frame body like nikon D3 series, which lens would you recommend using that is the same caliber just for D5100? Thank you very much!!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #1968 by Roy van Ommen
Hi there Yoanna,

Welcome to the Forum :)

The Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 FX lens will also fit on a Nikon D5100. A DX lens to a FX camera will not work, well, it will work but you will get a horrible vignet.

But thats only when putting a DX lens on a FX body.

So, conclussion:

A Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR II FX Lens will also fit on a D5100 and will give you awsome images.

Greetings,
Roy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Pickup your Photography Tshirt today
More
5 years 1 month ago #2036 by Mistery
I use the 70-200mm on my D7000 all the time when I'm out shooting wildlife. You won't regret it the purchase at all, but I do recommend the VR I over the VR II at it's much cheaper and you'll have nothing to gain since you'll be using the D5100.

D800 w/grip, D700 w/grip,V1,14-24mm F/2.8, 24-70mm F/2.8, 70-200mm F/2.8, 200-400mm F/4, 105mm,F/2.8,35mm F/1.4,35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.4,1.7x Tele

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 1 month ago #2039 by Roy van Ommen
I really can't comfirm what Keith is saying because i shoot Canon and not Nikon.

But keep it in mind while making the decission!

Greetings,
Roy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2074 by Christian Udarbe
One certainly can't go wrong with a 70-200 f/2.8; a very versatile lens. It will be your go to lens no doubt.

It's a great choice and perfect if you do go for full frame in the future.


A medical student;
A musician;
A photographer;
ITS ALL AN ART


Blogger
Facebook
Flickr
Twitter: @ChanUdarbe

Add me up!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2076 by Roy van Ommen

Christian Udarbe wrote: One certainly can't go wrong with a 70-200 f/2.8; a very versatile lens. It will be your go to lens no doubt.

It's a great choice and perfect if you do go for full frame in the future.


Hi Christian,

Do you know what the difference is between the 70-200 F/2.8 VR I and the VR II version?

Keith says that the VR I is cheaper which is true, but you have nothing to gain towards the VR II.

I don't know about that. Do you?

Greetings,
Roy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2079 by Christian Udarbe
Yeah I have been hearing a lot of debates regarding the VR I and II. I actually don't own any of them LOL but in those instances that I read the debates is that you do gain from the extra bucks in VR II.

The VR is obviously better than that of VR I (but probably not the best characteristic to justify the purchase; in most instances you'd be shooting at a higher shutter speed anyway plus both VR I and II won't have much differences at their max focal lengths plus moving subjects at that length), better optics probably, and I read that VR II can tolerate teleconverters a lot better than VR I, sharper corners, less vignette...

VR I though has better image magnification at minimum focus. VR II is reported to have an effective focal length of 135mm at minimum focus (still a bit alien to me as to what this really means LOL); this is a big deal to some people.

So, there are pros and cons to each version, but you do gain IMHO if you do get the VR II.

However, for me, if I were to find a VR I for a very good price, I would still get the VR I in spite of it being older. Otherwise, VR II all the way.


A medical student;
A musician;
A photographer;
ITS ALL AN ART


Blogger
Facebook
Flickr
Twitter: @ChanUdarbe

Add me up!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2081 by Christian Udarbe
That's just based on the debates I read... just want to reinstate that =p


A medical student;
A musician;
A photographer;
ITS ALL AN ART


Blogger
Facebook
Flickr
Twitter: @ChanUdarbe

Add me up!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2084 by Conor Casey

Christian Udarbe wrote: However, for me, if I were to find a VR I for a very good price, I would still get the VR I in spite of it being older. Otherwise, VR II all the way.


Good answer sir! Exactly what I was thinking. :lol:

Conor Casey
Flickr

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2085 by Roy van Ommen
I would not get it...

It won't fit to my Canon...

;)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2094 by Gregory Cazillo
The VR2 has upgraded coatings, glass, faster AF,better vignette control and a better VR system. There is a reason to get the new one. That said I am still quite happy with my VR1.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
5 years 4 weeks ago #2097 by Roy van Ommen
Indeed Greg, i think you will still get awsome images with the VRI. I think i would go for the VRI if that is nice priced against the VRII.

If you have already the VRI, i don't think you would go fast to the VRII version.. or you have loads of money.

Greetings,
Roy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum
256 Eagleview Blvd PMB 104
Exton, PA 19341