tredway

I have D7200/28-300 lense.not happy with sharpness of photos. Considering 70-200 (2.8) would it be worth the switch??

Dr Photo

definitely, although there are other factors: focus point(s), adequate shutter speed, etc.

Jim Bob

Which 70-200?

tredway

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 E FL ED VR

Jim Bob

In terms of image quality there is really no comparison here. The 70-200E is really without peer in this range for image AND build quality. However, there are some very comprehensive reviews indicating the Tamron 70-200 G2 may be as sharp. And it costs a LOT less. Only you can determine if it..."is worth the switch". You realize, of course, that comparing the two lenses you mention is not an apple to apple comparison.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I can't imagine that you'd be disappointed.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

I use the 28-300 on a D7200 shooting wildlife. It's a FF lens with sharp center great for cropping wildlife.

Tracht3

It's the 70-200 2.8 vr2 my best telephoto zoom and tack clean https://1drv.ms/f/s!Agtyc8xm6pDT73WNmyLg606bfNyM here are some samples. Love love love this lens. A workhorse and if you add a 14 tele you have your additional length.

Jim Bob

I don't believe that is the lens the OP is inquiring about.

olsonsview

The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 are generally all good lenses. Three of the latest versions all have VR. They are quite hand holdable. I have owned the VR1, and loved it. Sold it when I retired as a wedding pro for more than I paid for it new! I had gotten some great candid portraits with that lens while working as a full time photographer. I felt like a sniper using it to pick out some fun expressions of unaware subjects using room light alone. I missed that lens enough that I now have the middle version VRII, and love it as well. I have seen no need to spend more for the latest e-version. But have heard great things about the latest version. Any of those three are great bang for the buck. IF you need the capabilities they provide. But be aware they are not light in weight.
If saving money, then go for version 1, used, you will enjoy it! Just make sure any used version has the rotating tripod clamp with it. Those tripod mounts are not cheap on the used market. BUT you will still need a wide to lower tele zoom to have a range suitable for walk around use. There are many available that are quite good. I have always felt that having only one lens to do it all never worked perfectly for me. Since I have a full frame camera, I prefer the 24-120 to walk around with. You might prefer something a little wider with a crop camera? Best of luck!

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

If there is a lens adjustment feature in the 7200 you may want to try that. I have both the 28-300 and the 70-200 2.8 ver. I. What do you do with the photos? If you are mostly posting on line you could easily do with a basic kit lens. If you are enlarging to no more than 11x14, the 28-300 should give you all the sharpness you need. If you are doing critical work like photographing circuit boards or macro work or making very large prints, then the 70-200 will be the lens for you. I recently bought a 70-200 f4 and find it every bit as sharp and maybe even better than my 2.8. From reports I've read the sharpness of the f4 version will fall between the 2.8 ver. I and the 2.8 ver. II. It is lighter and the cost is only 2/3rds the cost of the 2.8 ver. II. Unless you need the 2.8 for the best bokeh as in doing wedding photography. For most other purposes the f4 will work just fine. I have included 4 shots taken with the 28-300 at various subjects using a variety of lens settings. I see nothing wrong with the sharpness of my lens. Could you have just gotten a bad copy?

Red Sky At Night

WOW is all I can say to your set of photos!!!! Could not be happier to see these today as my new lens arrives THIS afternoon and I can’t wait to get it on my D850 to see what it can do. Your images are something to aspire to!!

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I got the 70-200 about 12 years ago and it was one of my most used lenses for many years. About 1.5 years ago I got a 70-200 f/2.8 E FL ED, a more current model. As far as sharpness goes I don't see a lot of improvement, but the VR on the newer lens is a great advance over the older model. I first noted the VR improvement when I got a Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 ED. At 78, my hands aren't as steady as they once were but the new generation VR improves my images and allows longer shutter speeds at longer focal lengths, making low light work more feasible.

I have never used the 70-300, but I would recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 E FL ED. I think you will be happy with the sharpness and hand-holdability. If you do a lot of wildlife work you might consider the 200-500 for a future purchase. Even though it's not a fast lens at f/5.6, it is usable at slow shutter speeds with the new generation VR. And it's fairly sharp. And it's probably half the price of the new 70-200. (The 70-200 is a gold ring [pro level] lens and the 200-500 is not, but for the performance I see it is a very good value).

picsman Loc: Scotland

As a previous responder says why not think about the 70-200 f/4, its my go to lens for action shots. Its cheaper than the 2.8 and lighter and easier to carry all day if required. I think I read on DxOmark that is as sharp of sharper than the 2.8.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's a much larger, heavier, more expensive lens, but it's top quality. If you don't mind the negatives to get better images, go for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundup/lens-roundup/best-70-200mm-tele-zoom-lenses-64789
https://petapixel.com/2015/03/28/just-the-lenses-the-great-200mm-shoot-out/
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=that+nikon+guy+70-200mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=946&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0