Nikkor 70-200 - Worth the cost? Any one have experience with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR? I have a 70 to 300 Nikkor 4.5 that's OK for nature stuff (mostly what I shoot)...

RolandHalpern

Any one have experience with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR? I have a 70 to 300 Nikkor 4.5 that's OK for nature stuff (mostly what I shoot), and would sure like the added speed of the f/2.8, but wonder about the benefit considering cost and the loss of 100 mm. (My 70-300 is a DX, the 70-200 is FX - I am presently shooting on a D7000).

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Is another stop going to enhance what you are now doing?

BebuLamar

Actually it's like 2 stops

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

BebuLamar wrote:

Actually it's like 2 stops

Got me! At 300mm it's even more...F6.3. Two stops can be quite a bit, so my rash thoughts about only losing one was off base...had F4 stuck in my head.

Again, I would say what many usually do, it depends on usage.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

I've owned both and both are fine lenses. I had many great photos with my 70-300 and my DX camera's. Went I went to full frame, I sold all the DX lenses and one of the first lenses I purchased was the 70-200 f2.8. Awesome lens, whether it is the version I or II.
Only you can decide if the cost can be justified. Personally, with a DX camera, I would stick with the one you own now. If however, you are going to be doing a lot of indoor sports, etc., than the f2.8 would be my only choice between the two.

RolandHalpern

Thanks for the replies thus far. I won't be doing any sports, but am usually under the trees for nature stuff and flash is frequently out of the question. I also note the 70-200 is a bit over 2 pounds heavier, which adds concerns for travel where weight limits are involved. I think I'll see if the local camera shop has one as a rental and take it from there. Again, thanks.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I love the FL 70-200. I also have the 70-200 VRII. It was worth it to me.

RolandHalpern wrote:

Any one have experience with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR? I have a 70 to 300 Nikkor 4.5 that's OK for nature stuff (mostly what I shoot), and would sure like the added speed of the f/2.8, but wonder about the benefit considering cost and the loss of 100 mm. (My 70-300 is a DX, the 70-200 is FX - I am presently shooting on a D7000).

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

DavidPine wrote:

I love the FL 70-200. I also have the 70-200 VRII. It was worth it to me.

I have asked this before: In a nutshell, is the FL appreciably better than the VRll?

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

Since you have a D7000 you could also shop for a used 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D ED lens that's dependent on your cameras internal focus motor. I think they can be found for around $600 and you could decide if you like the range and constant aperture then either keep it or buy the new version and sell the old for about what you paid for it.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

I have no desire to upgrade but I don't need image stabilization or the faster focus the new models offer either...

BebuLamar

Personally the slower lens doesn't bother me but the 70-300mm isn't very sharp.

Bill_de Loc: US

I have the original 70-200 F/2.8 VR. It was my first kayaking lens and spent a lot of time on the water until I added the 200-400.

I know the reviews usually say the newer ones are better, and I don't doubt that at all. But I still use the one I have, now on dry land, and I haven't seen enough improvement in actual photos to make me want to change.

--

MW

Just my opinion based on my own tastes: If it is just "speed" that is important -- low light situations, fast shutter speed etc. -- there always ways to get nearly the same result that cost and weigh less. However, if a narrow depth of field used to isolate a subject the main attraction, getting that result with lighter, less bulky less expensive and slower zoom may be a challenge. Finally, the sharpness, contrast and other IQ chartetisticsbare pretty much superior those attained by more modest zooms. (Fixed focal length primes are another matter)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

RolandHalpern wrote:

Any one have experience with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR? I have a 70 to 300 Nikkor 4.5 that's OK for nature stuff (mostly what I shoot), and would sure like the added speed of the f/2.8, but wonder about the benefit considering cost and the loss of 100 mm. (My 70-300 is a DX, the 70-200 is FX - I am presently shooting on a D7000).

Night and day. But maybe less so because you are on a crop camera.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I tried the 70-200 and 70-300 at my nearest B&M store. One shot each at 200mm of the brick wall across the street. When I enlarged playback to maximum, the 70-200 was significantly sharper. Unfortunately, there was a monetary factor which I could not resolve. I now use an 80-400, a temporarily satisfactory compromise. But I want that 70-200!

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

The FL version is worth the $$. It IS sharper and noticeably so.