[rodi]

Originally Posted by MaximusJ

My man Ken Rockwell says that it got the best optics out there. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/180af.htm Kinda impressive for an almost 20 years old lens.

if you ever speak that idiot's name again around here, you will be shunned for life.

[MaximusJ]

If you dont explain me why you think he's an idiot, I cant really understand why I should avoid saying his name.

[rodi]

he has a disclaimer on his site claiming: " I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."

he's a photography troll who got in early with the google hits. he just makes shit up and talks about things that he can link to retail stores to pull in revenue. he's just a marketing guy that liked cameras. other than technical facts about products, his opinions are just garbage.
he's lucky enough to write garbage in a way to mislead amateurs and newbie photographers. it's actually "a goof" site as he calls it, and other than being funny to people who know better, it's really annoying.

[UdubBadger]

basically - he's just an asshat

[MaximusJ]

Got it

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

basically - he's just an asshat

I haven't read anything from him for a while now; except for the above mentioned review.

But rodi, tell me... Did you send him any donations?



Sorry; I had to ...

[rodi]

i donated poop in a Tenba bag.

[The1]

Originally Posted by rodi

i donated poop in a Tenba bag.

your son's poop or your poop?

[TL]

have you consider the 80-200 f/2.8? It's def cheaper than the 70-200 but there's no VR

[MaximusJ]

Originally Posted by The1

your son's poop or your poop?

50/50 mix?

Originally Posted by TL

have you consider the 80-200 f/2.8? It's def cheaper than the 70-200 but there's no VR

For the use I want to make of this lens, AF-S is mandatory. And the 80-200/2.8 AF-S that I see are selling for $1200 to 1400 used; depending of the condition.

For a couple hundreds more, I can get a brand new 70-200 2.8 AF-S VRII. I might be wrong, but this looks like a no brainer to me.

Besides, I'm kinda anal about used gear :S It have to be a helluva deal.

The more I read and talk about it, the more I think that its gonna be hard to find such a lens that is as polyvalent as the 70-200 for what I need it to do. It looks like its really on the top of his game since all the suggestions I got so far are cheaper and lens performant lenses.

I'm processing the pictures I took at the LG Snowboard World Cup last week and I really could have used the sharpness of the 70-200 Oh well...

[UdubBadger]

you could always just man up and buy a canon

[MaximusJ]

The federal government pricing makes the Nikon decision a no brainer

Really agressive pricing.

[The1]

the only way you're going to improve upon the 70-200 is if you grab a few prime telephotos.

but then you're stuck at a constant focal length, but if find the right length, it might be a great way to go on your spare camera body along with the 70-200.

or like Badger said, buy a canon

[MaximusJ]

Originally Posted by The1

the only way you're going to improve upon the 70-200 is if you grab a few prime telephotos.

but then you're stuck at a constant focal length, but if find the right length, it might be a great way to go on your spare camera body along with the 70-200.

or like Badger said, buy a canon

That's also what I think. I will go for that lens then and consider primes if I can justify them; but for now I cant.