Nikon 70-200mm VR II on DX Body(D90)

[habeebz]

Can Nikon 70-200mm VR II be used on a DX body like D90? Any points to consider before purchasing this lens to use on D90?

Thanks in Adv.

[kuvahmagh]

Yes it will work through it will be affected by the FLM just like any other lens on a DX body, meaning the lens will seem more like a 105-300 (IIRC Nikon has a 1.5x crop factor).

[kirbinster]

It will work great on the body, and is one of the best lenses out there. But why do you want to spend so much money when you can pick up a used 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR (not VR-II) for as little as $1,200 these days. The main reason they came out with the new one (beside making more money) is the older one was a little soft in the corners on full frame cameras. Since you are only using the inner 2/3rds of the lens on a DX body that is not an issue. So, why not save some big bucks and get the original which is a SUPER lens.

[danbaileyphoto]

It will work, but you might consider a different lens, like the 80-200mm. I recently did a comparison of the 70-200 f2.8 VR II against the 80-200mm f2.8 ED. The 80-200 is a superb quality lens, but it's a lot less expensive. For an extra thousand bucks, do you really need the VR?

Comparing Nikon Lenses: 80-200mm f2.8 vs 70-200mm f2.8 VRII | Daniel H. Bailey's Adventure Photography Blog

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by danbaileyphoto

It will work, but you might consider a different lens, like the 80-200mm. I recently did a comparison of the 70-200 f2.8 VR II against the 80-200mm f2.8 ED. The 80-200 is a superb quality lens, but it's a lot less expensive. For an extra thousand bucks, do you really need the VR?

Comparing Nikon Lenses: 80-200mm f2.8 vs 70-200mm f2.8 VRII | Daniel H. Bailey's Adventure Photography Blog

I had the 80-200 f/2.8 and yes it is a great lens, BUT it is very heavy and difficult to hand-hold without the VR. The 70-200 VR is a better choice for most people.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by danbaileyphoto

For an extra thousand bucks, do you really need the VR?

Not really $1k now is it. 80-200 and 70-200 VR (v1) are both going for the 1000-1200 mark on eBay. And yes, at those lengths VR is a godsend. Necessary? probably not. But it sure helps.

[kirbinster]

On craigslist 80-200 (two ring version - not pushpull) is going for about $700 while 70-200VR is about $1,200. No clue why flea-bay has such a high price for the 80-200.

[danbaileyphoto]

Because it's an AWESOME lens. It's fast and exceptionally sharp. It's professional quality glass, the kind that never goes out of style. I've had mine for fifteen years and it's still my number one go-to lens for action and sports, and often people. It's fast enough to hand hold in most situations, and with today's high ISO bodies, it makes VR not really needed. Besides, if your subject is moving, the VR won't really make a difference anyway.

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by danbaileyphoto

Because it's an AWESOME lens. It's fast and exceptionally sharp. It's professional quality glass, the kind that never goes out of style. I've had mine for fifteen years and it's still my number one go-to lens for action and sports, and often people. It's fast enough to hand hold in most situations, and with today's high ISO bodies, it makes VR not really needed. Besides, if your subject is moving, the VR won't really make a difference anyway.

I highly disagree with this statement about VR. I have owned both lenses, and the 70-200VR will give you much sharper shots when hand-held. Sure you can boost ISO, but why introduce noise when VR is a way to keep your ISO lower.

[jdepould]

The eBay price discrepancy is probably AF-S v. AF-D.

You don't need the VR2 on a D90, get the VR1 if you want VR, or the 80-200 if you don't care.