Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Hey Hoggers, happy Fathers Dayto the guys out there. The wifey knows I have been researching the 70-200 f/4 and wants to get me a like new one for fathers day for my 7200. I have the 70-300 non vr that I am not really thrilled about. Sigmas 17-50, 10-20, Nikon 50mm. Nikon 75-300. Is the 70-200 really that good ? Is it a major upgrade? I am not a pro mainly shoot portraits, dogs (I am a dog boarder so I have lots of models). street scenes. landscapes and flowers. Thanks for any advice

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

It would be a very good choice.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

I know it costs more but the 70-200 f2.8 FL is an outstanding zoom! That would be a real upgrade! I use mine on my D7200 and it focuses fast and has beautiful IQ. Great portrait and action lens.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

I found the 70-200 f4 to be a significant upgrade over the 75-300 from the 1990s. The one other comparison I made was that it beat the 80-200 2.8 AF-S also.

(Download)

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I bought a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 from a fellow here. It is tack sharp and focuses very fast and super quietly. I had an 80-200f2.8 Nikon that was wonderful just wanted something newer and a touch sharper. I did succeed. I would go for a f2.8 if possible.

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

Royce the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED IF VR is an awesome piece of kit (albeit way beyond my means for a new one)
It was renowned Fashion Photographer Peter Lindbergh's favorite lens during the final years of his career (see below).

I have and shoot Nikon's only other AF 70-210mm f/4 Nikkor the epic vintage 1981-1982 model (a rare find now) which is far superior for studio assignments (in my humble estimation) to the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VR II (which I also have and shoot). This 40+ year old optic is a true 210mm at headshot distance while the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED IF VR II is merely 135mm when it's FL is set to 200mm in a studio scenario (MAJOR focus breathing problem).

See the Yoga image below to appreciate how amazing the acuity of the AF 70-210mm f/4 Nikkor actually is... this optic is a joy in the studio. But wait it doesn't have VR so hobbyist past it by... As you likely will also... That said, it can be had for ~ $150 in excellent condition (provided you can actually find one). I have two and it took me several years and 4 returned lenses until I found two that were in stellar condition (my second shooter uses the other one).

btw, the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED IF VR is now showing up on eBay at bargain prices... Why? Apparently there are "cosmetic" issues with this prosumer lens' build... The finish is flaking off... Nikon apparently was trying to keep the cost down... Don't believe this? Go out on eBay there are many for sale with this cosmetic issue. Even KEH has one for only $456.87 (Ugly Condition) lol Yep, there quite a few "Ugly" AF-S 70-200mm f/4 VR for sale now.
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-nikkor-70-200mm-f-2-8g-ed-if-af-s-vr-telephoto-zoom-lens.html

Hope this helps Royce
Wishing you a very joyful Father's Day!
.

The vintage AF 70-210mm f/4 Nikkor on a D810... Totally a joy to shoot in a studio (767 grams; measured)

(Download)

Peter Lindburgh shooting the AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED IF VR Nikkor on location (Fashion Editorials)

(Download)

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

Or you could get the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 and still have money left over personally I think it's a great lens. A lot of people don't like third party lens' but research Tamron, and they have 6 year warranties.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The 70-200 2.8 FL is actually sharper and separates subjects better when used wide open. It is a lens I used as a photojournalist many moons ago and still remains my main lens for a variety of venues.
Don't short change yourself when it comes to this lens. You will be happy with the 70-200 4, but you will be blown away with the 70-200 2.8.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

How much weight do you want to lug around? Both the 70-200 2.8 and the 70-200 4 are great lenses. I use both. The quality of product from either lens is exceptional and either will give you much better results than the lens you are currently using. The 2.8 is very heavy so when I shoot in the field I often opt for using the f4. Inside shooting brings out the 2.8 for better separation of subject in a more confined space and the faster lens is also a consideration for lower light settings. The 4 is considerably less expensive than the 2.8 which is also a nice benefit.

ColoPete

I am very happy with my Nikkor 70-200 f4. I shoot mostly outdoors in good light, so rarely feel the need for a wider aperture. The visual acuity is impressive, and it is lighter (and less expensive) than the f2.8 version. I wish it had a bit more reach (say 70 to 300mm) but as in life, there are trade offs.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

- Yes, a major upgrade

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Have you considered the AF-S DX 55-200MM f/4-5.6 ED VRII Nikkor. Ken Rockwell gives it excellent reviews. I have a D7200 and am very happy with this lense. It is lightweight. It has a plastic mount, but unless you bang it around that shouldn't be a problem.

Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

I have the 70-200 2.8 and believe it to be a fine lens. I use it all the time for sports.

(Download)

Joan DC Loc: Washington DC

Incredible lens. A bit heavy — at least got me — but it is known as one of the best lenses Nikon ever made.

Joan DC Loc: Washington DC

At least for me — not “got.” Clumsy fingers