if u don need VR... i vote 80-200... tested both b4... both produce same image quality IMO

ive ask this question previously, and imo, its better to save few bucks to get VRII, no doubt at all.

aiya didnt notice. hahaha

image-wise plus minus the same, how bout focusing speed?

thats the most im worry about coz my hand is not tough as steel, just thinking that i must use fast shutter speed to avoid blur image with 80-200, if i can i dont want to burn all my money to buy vr1/vr2 just for VR thing..

The focussing is insanely fast for the vrII

---

Added on January 29, 2012, 7:26 pmHehe but the vr helps alot for wedding and concerts etc! You can shoot at 1/10th at 70mm where the lights are dim!

This post has been edited by Calvin Seak: Jan 29 2012, 07:26 PM

i don think 4.4k vs 6.9k is a few bucks....

for focus speed the new "re-released" AF-D version is still slower than the VR2 but not by much...

if gonna shoot at low light @ 200mm... i guess VR2 is the obvious choice unless wanna carry a tripod around...

4 me personally, prefer the VR2... slowly saving up now

This post has been edited by seather: Jan 29 2012, 07:34 PM

haha a few bucks + a few bucks + a few bucks = bunch of few bucks = can get the VRII

ya learn from rosmah.... sikit sikit jadi bukit...

Worth the wait and savings!

+1

if you are a full time professional by all means go ahead with VR2.
Otherwise you need to think thrice to before throwing in the money.

This post has been edited by sukhoi37: Jan 29 2012, 07:52 PM

Haha very true! If you want to sve up a few maybe can scout for Nikon refurbished version! I got my 16-35 f4 for rm 3k which feels like a brand new lens just that warranty is only for 90 days -.- unlike canons refurbished lens whih has 1 year warranty

im not a fulltime pro, just part time wedding photographer thats why im still thinking its worth or not to burn all my money for vr2..

then u should answer it yourself. If you can grab the VRII, and get numerous wedding job, u still can gain the return from the lens. but its just my opinion, coz that's what i do rite now =)

yeah thats what im thinking about, its time now when i feel that tele zoom is a must for wedding photographer, my picture is something missing without it..

spam old picture~

I've tried 70200f2.8VR during wedding, f2.8 is too slow for low light.
I prefer fast prime e.g 85f1.8 or f1.4.

just my two cents

what body you use hehe XD
iso?

just wan update my self for newer body in general term hahha

I'm using D700.
ISO depends on the lighting, but i find that most of the wedding ballroom lighting is very challenging.
You need at least ISO3200-6400 to stop the action at f2.8 at tele range.

ohhh.... my D70s sure kantoi in this kind situation. :/

Just wondering if any place in msia where one can rent lenses from them?