The price at Amazon has finally dropped on the 70-200 VRII - close to pre-earthquake price. Get 'um while they last.
[closed]
70-200 vrII Price drop
(42 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
This was bound to happen. The post-quake prices were ridiculous and I'm sure most people said "screw it." Then of course, Japan ramped up production because they don't play around. A few probably bought thinking prices would be up there for at least a year. Now they're probably kicking themselves.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow I'm actually surprised it would ever drop. The price got as high as $3200 where I live. Just a wonderful lens though and any shortcomings the VR1 had has been fixed. Too bad its still such a heavy bugger. Its still the go to lens for work for most people.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I just use a 180mm. Half the weight and no need for me to spend the extra cash on this lens. If I want to go wider, I put on a different lens that's always in my bag anyway. I can't see the convenience of a zoom being worthy of that much more cash, when I can just zoom in and out with my feet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
I just use a 180mm. Half the weight and no need for me to spend the extra cash on this lens. If I want to go wider, I put on a different lens that's always in my bag anyway. I can't see the convenience of a zoom being worthy of that much more cash, when I can just zoom in and out with my feet.Have you tried it? It is regarded by (most?) as the best Nikon lens out there. I think it is one of those lenses that you get what you pay for. Plus you said you are carrying other lenses...so cutting down weight you are carrying on the camera, but still have the weight in you bag.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's a super lens. My co-worker recently bought one. I would imagine event photographers don't always have the luxury of changing the field of view with their feet. It's got its purpose in photography.
Posted 1 year ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Have you tried it? It is regarded by (most?) as the best Nikon lens out there.I have the 180mm and the 70-200mm VRI and I have to say the 180 is a bit sharper. The 180mm is ridiculously sharp. Stronger CAs though. 180mm size is it's big point as it is small in comparison. Depending on what you shoot, it could be all you would need. That said, I rarely use it as the 70-200mm with VR is much more useful. I don't see the need in updating it though.
I'm not sure the earthquake has any barring on the lowering of the price. Lenses usually drop a bit after 18months of being released. That is just normal.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
I'm not sure the earthquake has any barring on the lowering of the price. Lenses usually drop a bit after 18months of being released. That is just normal.I think the point they were making is that the price had already dropped, then went back up again after the quake. Might just be a coincidence, but maybe not.
Posted 1 year ago # -
demand usually pushes the prices up.
I am not saying that they ar not in demand, however, even though most of us may want one, the fact is they are expensive, and, unless you are really into some type of photography that will allow you to put this lens to full use, it is a lot of money.
even though the want may be there, the line up at the stores to buy is not, therefore, lower the price a little to get them moving.
As an example, look at the 35 1.8, when the hype about this lens went around the internet everyone had to have one, the price went up and the scammers were buying them and reselling on fleabay for more than MSRP, now, nearly everyone who wanted one went out and bought it the price is deginning to drop.
There are always other ways to get there, and as we all know, large aperture zooms are always heavy, and, this monster is heavy, so, back to the old way of doing things, 2 or 3 fast primes, or make do with semipro zooms mixed in with primes.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interesting to see that the 105mm Macro still isn't at its old price even though it's a Chinese made lens.
Probably most of its parts are from Japan.
Other lenses I'm not too familiar with their prices.
The 35mm 1.8 is almost at its old price though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
NSXType-R said:
Interesting to see that the 105mm Macro still isn't at its old price even though it's a Chinese made lens.Probably most of its parts are from Japan.
.
I agree with you NSX, the price of that lusted after 105mm Micro has driven me to the Tokina 100mm Marco...................sigh
Posted 1 year ago # -
tcole1983 said:
Have you tried it? It is regarded by (most?) as the best Nikon lens out there. I think it is one of those lenses that you get what you pay for. Plus you said you are carrying other lenses...so cutting down weight you are carrying on the camera, but still have the weight in you bag.Never tried it, but I'd rather have the extra weight over my back in the bag than on my shoulder or around my neck. As Tao said, the 180mm is really all you need for that range, and it gets me tired enough when I use it for 2-4 hours. There's no advantage to me to lug the VRII around for hours. I currently don't have any zooms in my gear. They suck too much dust into your sensor, anyway.
I'm as primitive as they come, considering I use my feet to zoom, and my VR with any lens is a mini tripod attached to the camera and braced up against my chest.
Posted 1 year ago # -
casperwb said:
I agree with you NSX, the price of that lusted after 105mm Micro has driven me to the Tokina 100mm Marco...................sighI got my refurbished copy for $780 right before everything happened...glad I got it just in time because I haven't even seen many for under $900 recently.
JJump said:
Never tried it, but I'd rather have the extra weight over my back in the bag than on my shoulder or around my neck. As Tao said, the 180mm is really all you need for that range, and it gets me tired enough when I use it for 2-4 hours. There's no advantage to me to lug the VRII around for hours. I currently don't have any zooms in my gear. They suck too much dust into your sensor, anyway.I'm as primitive as they come, considering I use my feet to zoom, and my VR with any lens is a mini tripod attached to the camera and braced up against my chest.
Just a preference is all. I would say the majority like the functionality of a zoom. Might be a slight less sharp then a prime, but I would give it up for a zoom and VR. On the other hand I do have the 105 micro which is super sharp and I would much rather use it then my other zooms at that range. There is an advantage though and it could get you a shot that you might miss with your 180 prime as you could zoom in or out while you were trying to run back and forth to adjust. Lol your last sentence sums it up though. Seems like most that have shot with film and in the age where zooms weren't comparable to primes would think like you. I think now there isn't that big of a gap and a usable zoom is much better of a deal even if it costs a little more.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would use zooms if 1) lenses like the VRII were lighter while still retaining the f2.8, and 2) if they didn't suck all that dust into your camera. Most people I talk to who have to regularly take their sensors in to be professionally cleaned use zooms. I've never had to do this (knock on wood), and I rarely use zooms, so there is something to say for primes keeping your sensors clean. And I change lenses 1-3 times every shoot, so I believe using a zoom puts more dust on your sensor than changing lenses does.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Interesting argument here JJump about the 180mm. I have heard over the years that it is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses, and is it is noticeably lighter than the 70-200mm. I believe the 130mm DC and 180mm are the two sharpest lenses in the Nikon Lineup among others. The weight would be much less if you have primes such as a 50mm, 35mm and even a 85mm. As long as you don't mind not zooming and putting the work in with your feet :) Do you find yourself going wide much?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I find that I either don't need to go wide too often, or I have a shoot where it's all wide shots and I keep a 28mm on permanently. So, I am usually never stuck at whatever lens I grab. Yes, there is occasion when the 180mm is on my camera and I have to back up a lot to not crop things out, but I don't need to often, or else I would just switch to an 85mm.
I only have 4 lenses. I have a 50mm f1.8D and it was so cheap, it's like why not have it in your kit. A long time ago, I used nothing but an 85mm lens. I find that I still most often use my 85mm, followed by the 28mm, and finally the 180mm. It's really the only 3 lenses I need.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I do believe the dust issue is less or a problem with zooms that are fully enclosed and don't extend and retract...which I believe is the case with the 70-200.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.That doesn't seem to always be the case as my 14-24mm sucks a slew of air in while zooming much more than any of the crap lenses Ive used or am using. However it does it from the back and not from the front... It is more a problem with older cameras who cant clean themselves like my D200. It always gets dust on the sensor from using that lens...
Posted 1 year ago # -
That's not good if even the pricier zooms suck that much in. Maybe the heavier weight forces more dust than the lightweight ones.
Posted 1 year ago # -
JJump said:
I still believe the zoom motion within an enclosed lens pushes dust into the camera body. Definitely less though with pro zooms than cheaper retractable ones.I know this is off topic, but it is an interesting question. I don't see why a pro spec lens made to tight tolerances should put any dust the way of the sensor. After all unless I'm mistaken the lens nearest the sensor doesn't move during zooming, only the internal ones. There would need to be some sort of gap around the perimeter of that lens for air to escape. I don't actually see why ANY external air needs to be sucked in or blown out of a lens that doesn't alter its length while zooming. And on those lenses that do, I would think any air exchange would happen around the zoom ring or extending barrel join?
Posted 1 year ago # -
SkintBrit said:
I know this is off topic, but it is an interesting question. I don't see why a pro spec lens made to tight tolerances should put any dust the way of the sensor. After all unless I'm mistaken the lens nearest the sensor doesn't move during zooming, only the internal ones. There would need to be some sort of gap around the perimeter of that lens for air to escape. I don't actually see why ANY external air needs to be sucked in or blown out of a lens that doesn't alter its length while zooming. And on those lenses that do, I would think any air exchange would happen around the zoom ring or extending barrel join?Well if no air were to be moved in and out, or the lens is air tight, it'd be mighty hard to zoom or focus a lens right?
And no lens is watertight, so some air must be moving in and out at all times.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I if it sucked in air from the extending barrel join it would be sucking in external dust whereas from the inside it just blows the dust around if there is any inside of the mount. That is why my cheapo lenses like the 18-70mm have alot of dust on the back of the front element wheras my pro lenses have no internal dust.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
