jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The F/2.8 aperture and excellent quality glass. If you Google "That Nikon Guy," you'll find a multi-part comparison of those lenses. He's dropped the "Nikon Guy" name, but I can never remember the new name.

Here he is -

http://www.mattgranger.com/

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

LoL Not going to your link, I would guess the Web address has something to do with his name.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Hello robroxy

The two most used lenses I use are the 70-200 IS/f4 L and my 24-105 IS/f4 L.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I've used several of these lenses, the 2.8 and 4.0.

Although they are considered among the best I found that short end was too long and the long end was too short for my preferences. As a consequence they sat on the shelf a lot.

I prefer the Nikon 28-300 on my FF cameras. This is my go to general purpose lens. Its relatively small, has good VR , weather sealed, and the IQ is more than satisfying.

Hey, don't follow me...I'm just saying.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I have two 70-200s in my Canon "daily user" kit. It's one of my most-used lenses, I wouldn't want to be without one, so I bought a backup.

Actually I prefer shooting with primes, instead of zooms. However, out of 20 lenses, I have 7 zooms (10-22mm, 12-24mm, 24-70mm, two 28-135s, two 70-200s). The versatility, speed and adaptability of zooms are simply necessary at times...

And 70-200 is one of the most useful for many different things. I use mine mostly for sports/action shooting... but also for portraits and some wildlife. Have even occasionally shot close-ups with them, by adding a macro extension tube or diopter lens. 70-200s also are one of the most highly developed designs.... In fact there are few OEM systems or third party lens manufacturers who don't offer a good one or two, though the exact focal length range might vary a little. Heck, Canon offers choice among four different models of 70-200.

In general, zooms have improved a lot the last couple decades. It used to be that prime lenses had far better image quality than most zooms. Though there were a few exceptions, early zooms (1960s through, say, 1980s) typically had noticeably poorer image quality. But that's changed with modern design and manufacturing precision. Today some zooms closely rival the image quality possible with prime lenses, although zooms still tend to be larger and heavier, and those with the best image quality tend to be pretty pricey. But, it may ultimately be cheaper to get a couple high quality zooms... for example I've seen some reviewers refer to the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L II USM and EF 70-200/2.8L II IS USM as "a bag full of primes". Those two "beasts" will set you back about $4000. But compare that to buying and carrying around high quality 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, and 200mm primes.

In general, less extreme zooms offer the best image quality. A 24-70 or 70-200 is a 3X. Many ultrawides are 2X (such as my 10-22mm and 12-24mm). A 100-400 is 4X. And the 28-135s I use are just shy of 5X. For best image quality and performance, that's about as extreme a zoom range as I'll use, even today. It's also usually best for a zoom to be restricted to a certain type of focal length... such as ultrawide-to-wide angle, or short-telephoto-to-moderate-telephoto, or moderate-telephoto-to-strong-telephoto. They might be convenient, but you won't find any 10X (or more) wide-to-normal-to-moderate-tele-to-strong-tele zooms in my camera bag. In my experience, those "do everything" zooms don't do anything particularly well. Besides, the whole point of an SLR camera is it's ability to be easily adapted for different uses simply by changing out the lens. If I wanted a camera set up that does it all without lens changes, I'd buy a fixed-lens point 'n' shoot. I have no desire to convert my DSLRs into point 'n' shoots!

marsdad Loc: NE Florida

Great walking around lens, good for most situations. With a 2x extender you can reach out pretty well. I have 1 for my Nikon and 1 for my Canon.

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

My 70-200mm f4 is definitely under-utilized. I tend to use a wider range zoom for landscapes and the most lens I can get (100-400mm + 1.4x) for wildlife.

However, one way the 70-200mm really fits well in my shooting is when weight is a premium. For example, if I am taking a long hike into Glacier NP's backcountry, the 70-200 and 1.4x on a monopod gives me pretty good reach for wildlife, good stability and low weight.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Building biceps.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

All forms of nature/wildlife, sports, portraits/people - hard to exclude ANY genres ! - including close up work ! Because of the relative shallower DOF at these focal lengths, artistic interpretation is more applicable.

If you are at all serious about photography, you MUST have a 70/80-200/210mm lens !

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It is my "walk around lens"!

LarryN Loc: Portland OR & Carbondale, CO

I have a 70-200L f/2.8 lens & a 2x extender. It is a fabulous lens for all the reasons mentioned above. But it is a heavy lens so I use a monopod much of the time.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If you have Canon I agree with getting the 100-400 as it is more versatile unless you are into low light work that involves action. Its is close to the same size as the 70-200 but focuses much closer (MII model) and has twice the reach for wildlife, landscapes and sports yet the 100mm length works well for portraits.
With this new lens unless you need the f2.8 for some specific reason this lens easily does it all better and has more reach to boot.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I opted for Nikon's older AF 80-200mm ED IF F2.8. Costs a lot less, pretty much just as sharp but doesn't have VR (not that I'm a fan of VR anyway)

Bobster Loc: Thousand Oaks, CA

I use nikons 70-200 f/4 for my grandchildrens sports.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have heard excellent things about this lens from several sources. Worth looking into.