DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:55 am**

80

400

Great lens, great fun.

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:58 am**

GregB,
It's sharp!,
Cheese! I took you more than 1/2 year to find out its sweet spot! :lol:

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:29 am**

Greg nice pics and yes this is a nice lens, i dont get to use mine much now days but i do like it lots and will get to use it again soon.

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 8:40 am**

It is a good lens Greg - sharp images. However like BBJ I do not use it very much. However when you need it........you need it :wink:

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:50 am**

Greg, one of the more perfect landscape and compositions to show the benefit of a long zoom. Sell the location to Nikon's marketing people :wink:

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:29 pm**

I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:57 pm**

That's a crazy lens

If you were pointing that lens last Thursday morning towards the top of the ANZ building (left tower), you'd probably see me looking out the window :p

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:01 pm**

Nice sharp shots and good reach

It shows the quality od this lens. I agree Greg its a nice bit of glass. I have been using mine regularly and am looking forward to experimenting a bit more with handolding technique to improve capture rate but all in all its a beautiful lens. CAn't wait till i get my canon 500D closeup lens from Birdy. Should be interesting then. I can only recommend this great value for money lens.
cheers
marco

Posted: **Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:12 pm**

glass eye wrote:I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John

70-200 VR is sweeeet (eg see the first pic here or the flower pics here), but the TC 1.7 is better than the 2.0

Posted: **Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:56 am**

glass eye wrote:I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John,

The question is: what would be your use for this lens?

If you absolutely need the reach, the 80-400 is the way to go.

If you don't have a need for that absolute reach, then the 70-200 plus the 1.7 TC will be your better choice.

For the first time ever, I could have used the 70-200 in preference to my 80-400 and 24-120 while shooting at the NAS production of Midsummer Night's Dream.

Posted: **Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:09 pm**

gstark wrote:
glass eye wrote:I was looking for a naked chick in the window hahaha silly me.

I was thinking of getting this lens but am considering the 70-200mm VR that sells for about $2700 and throwing a converter on it [2x].

Can anyone advise me on this if so i would appreciate it.

John,

The question is: what would be your use for this lens?

If you absolutely need the reach, the 80-400 is the way to go.

If you don't have a need for that absolute reach, then the 70-200 plus the 1.7 TC will be your better choice.

For the first time ever, I could have used the 70-200 in preference to my 80-400 and 24-120 while shooting at the NAS production of Midsummer Night's Dream.

Wow Gary. That's an impressive comment coming from you and knowing your thoughts on the 80-400. I take it that the factor for you was that you would have liked the 70-200's low light performance with the 80-400.