adamz said:
just checked ebay, and You can get a perfect condition 70-200/vr for less than $1600, that's a bargain for me, at least I would say that if You don't plan to use this kind of lens on FF, than for $800 You not only can buy TC17 - brand new at BH costs $400, so You have $400 to get a lot of beer, shit... You can get drunk for almost a month :)

I sure he will share ... so it should not last for more than a week ... but it will be worthy

Wow, 70-200 on the D40. That would blow my mind away. My camera strap would probably rip off if I let go of my camera with that on my neck.

That would be an awesome setup indeed.

Yea but think of all the beer he's already bought and he'd have both the D700 AND D3S AND 70-200 VRI AND VRII :^)

just checked ebay, and You can get a perfect condition 70-200/vr for less than $1600, that's a bargain for me, at least I would say that if You don't plan to use this kind of lens on FF, than for $800 You not only can buy TC17 - brand new at BH costs $400, so You have $400 to get a lot of beer, shit... You can get drunk for almost a month :)

Willis said:
I was leaning toward the VR2 until you said beer... now I'm having second thoughts.

I knew you will like that ;D

I was leaning toward the VR2 until you said beer... now I'm having second thoughts.

adamz said:
willis - the "old" 70-200/vr is really an amazing piece of glass, especially on DX bodies. the only problems noticed by "professionals" was vignieting on FF, no one ever said any bad word about this lens on DX

I totally agree with Adamz, older 70-200 is the best mid tele range zoom ever for DX. Slight light and sharpness fail-off was only seen on FF using f/2.8 and if you can get the right price for it it will be as good as the newer one on DX for sure. For the money left you could get a TC-17 and a few beers.

I mostly shoot w/ my D40. The 70-200 would spend most of its time on my lady's D90. 200mm is way to much range for the bar :) Trust me, you don't want to see any of those guy's close up.

I'm not even sure my little D40 could support it.

BTW: When the D800 or whatever does come out, I'll be all over it.

I would imagine if there is a difference in AF speed it's not by much. Your cameras a D40 right? Then you won't notice a difference on it either way. Why not wait until PMA and upgrade your body? Not that the D40 isn't a great camera but what if Nikon announces this "rumored" D800 or "cheap" full frame camera? The new 70-200 versus the old really won't make a difference on a D40.

I'd be curious know how the two compare on DX. Most of what I've read says that the VR I version is pretty much flawless in terms of optics on DX, but you can never have to much sharpness.

I also get the impression from the reviews that it focuses more quickly (although I don't have a definitive statement to that effect). AF speed\accuracy is pretty huge for me.

I think I'm leaning toward the VRII version if for no other reason than the fact that after this lens, I'm pretty much done buying lenses. I'll have everything I need. The only other lens I'd be interested in is the 14-24, which is useless to me until I get a FF body. Until then, my 11-16 works just fine.

Thank you pabnj. Of course it was a comparative statement, that's what compromises are all about. Whether the improvements noted for the new lens are worth $500 is individual and subjective, but no one seems to find it inferior.

adamz said:
ted - so you say that 70-200/VR I is a lens with compromises... well can't disagree with You more

In comparison to the new 70-200, one could conclude the old version has compromises as it does show a bit of softness, and vignetting which the new one has greatly improved on. I don't think Ted was putting down the old lens as it was, and still is a great lens. I had the opportunity to try the new lens at PhotoPlus East, and I was able with relative constancy to shoot razor sharp at a 10th second shutter speed. I have rarely been able to achieve that with the old lens. Personally I'd spend the extra $500, and get the new one.

ted - so you say that 70-200/VR I is a lens with compromises... well can't disagree with You more

willis - if You decide to go for the 1st gen VR than check ebay.com, as there will be plenty of photographers willing to spend some extra bucks for the new version and sell the first one for less

I'd pay more. Since you mention a possible future with two FX bodies, I'd get the new lens or at least wait for more reviews. I hate having a lens with more compromises than necessary.

Yeah, I would say keep the 70-200 and sit tight to see what new stuff Nikon might bring out.

I prefer the wider end anyway, so the 24-70 on FF would still be the 24-70, unless of course Nikon decides to update that too.

Optically the new version is better too - OOF areas (especially those that are only just OOF) are rendered more pleasingly, and it is definitely sharper in the corners and the centre (more noticeably in the corners). However, if you are using it on DX, you will likely not notice the difference.

willis - the "old" 70-200/vr is really an amazing piece of glass, especially on DX bodies. the only problems noticed by "professionals" was vignieting on FF, no one ever said any bad word about this lens on DX

I say just wait until PMA to see what new goodies Nikon brings

I was curious to know you guy's opinion on the merits of the new 70-200 VR II vs. the older 2003 70-200. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger. Here's my dilemma: 1. I don't own a FX camera. 2. If I did own an FX camera, I'd almost certainly be using my 24-70 lens on it, with the 70-200 on a second (DX) body. 3. If I owned 2 FX bodies, I still would probably use the 70-200 on a DX body because it's reach I'm after (My 105mm can fill in for the times that I need a sharp tele lens without reach).

Knowing that, is there any reason to invest in the new 70-200?