nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E vs nikon 70-200 f/2.8G lens: Has anyone purchased and used the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E version lens. Is it worth the extra 700-800 dollar investment over the...

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Has anyone purchased and used the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E version lens. Is it worth the extra 700-800 dollar investment over the 70-200 f/2.8G lens? I will primarily use it for sports and other action photography and am having a problem justifying the extra cost for the E version of this lens, as the reviews for the older (and cheaper) version of this lens are great and I cannot find that much difference between the two.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

orrie smith wrote:

Has anyone purchased and used the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E version lens. Is it worth the extra 700-800 dollar investment over the 70-200 f/2.8G lens? I will primarily use it for sports and other action photography and am having a problem justifying the extra cost for the E version of this lens, as the reviews for the older (and cheaper) version of this lens are great and I cannot find that much difference between the two.

It's not worth it for me, but...

Some comparison sites.

http://lensvslens.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.diyphotography.net/this-website-helps-you-choose-your-next-lens-based-on-the-photos-you-like/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/

Ira

You should also look at the Nikon 70-200 f4G (if you don't need a 2.8). It is much lighter, smaller and very sharp.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-F4G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D810-versus-AF-S-VR-Zoom-Nikkor-70-200mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D810__1071_963_223_963
Also, the Tamron 70-200 got great reviews.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I bought the FL lens and in my opinion it is the best lens made by Nikon. I gave my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII to my grandson.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

DavidPine wrote:

I bought the FL lens and in my opinion it is the best lens made by Nikon. I gave my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII to my grandson.

Lucky grandson.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Love and use the old one very successfully.

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

I got the old one back in 2008. Just got the new one and as far as IQ is concerned I don't see a lot of difference. Maybe a bit better on the edges. But the VR is significantly better on the new version. Since I do a lot of low light work the VR helps me.

O2Ra

DirtFarmer wrote:

I got the old one back in 2008. Just got the new one and as far as IQ is concerned I don't see a lot of difference. Maybe a bit better on the edges. But the VR is significantly better on the new version. Since I do a lot of low light work the VR helps me.

I have the 80-200f/2.8 afs-d and the 70-200 f/2.8 e . I was wondering how your new e version was doing in low light.
Mine with my d810 hunts and misses focus. In good light it rocks. The older 80-200 focuses slightly slower but doesn't hunt and hits its focus better. But the VR does help a lot . I shoot live music and I can get 1/160 hand held with no self induced blurr at f/2.8 . The 80-200 requires 250

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

I decided on the newer FL version, thanks for the input.

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

O2Ra wrote:

I have the 80-200f/2.8 afs-d and the 70-200 f/2.8 e . I was wondering how your new e version was doing in low light.
Mine with my d810 hunts and misses focus. In good light it rocks. The older 80-200 focuses slightly slower but doesn't hunt and hits its focus better. But the VR does help a lot . I shoot live music and I can get 1/160 hand held with no self induced blurr at f/2.8 . The 80-200 requires 250

I haven't had any problem with focusing but I'm using a D5 or occasionally a D4.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

DavidPine wrote:

I bought the FL lens and in my opinion it is the best lens made by Nikon. I gave my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII to my grandson.

Here again, I completely agree with David. Nikon (finally) fixed a couple of flaws with the predecessor such as lack of focus stop buttons and focus breathing (never really bothered me) and updated a whole bunch of things. This baby is right there at the top of the heap with a few others such as the 180/2.8D and the 85/1.4G IMHO. I've owned most all of the AF lenses in the 70/80-200 range and all of them were pretty good for their time. I have been so waiting for this update, I pre-ordered mine with my local pro dealer and received one of the first available. If this were the last one I ever bought (due to age), I'd be very happy! Best of luck.

therwol Loc: USA

Ira wrote:

You should also look at the Nikon 70-200 f4G (if you don't need a 2.8). It is much lighter, smaller and very sharp.

I second that. That's the one I bought. Very sharp, even wide open, and it won't break your back. Much less expensive too.

bettis1 Loc: Texas

therwol wrote:

I second that. That's the one I bought. Very sharp, even wide open, and it won't break your back. Much less expensive too.

I agree wholeheartedly. The f4 is an excellent lens and with the improved ISO capabilities of the latest cameras the bigger hole in the end of the f 2.8 loses much of its attractiveness when measured against the weight and cost differential.

Bob

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

bettis1 wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. The f4 is an excellent lens and with the improved ISO capabilities of the latest cameras the bigger hole in the end of the f 2.8 loses much of its attractiveness when measured against the weight and cost differential.

Bob

I am also a fan of the newer F4 version as I do own one, along with its 2.8 brother. I find that, as I age, weight becomes more important and I use the F4 version when it fits in with what I plan to do. When it comes to indoor gyms and night games under the lights, the F4 stays home in favor of the F2.8. IMHO, the F2.8 version is essential for sports action work as described, even with the newest cameras. Best of luck.

Jim Bob

orrie smith wrote:

Has anyone purchased and used the new Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 E version lens. Is it worth the extra 700-800 dollar investment over the 70-200 f/2.8G lens? I will primarily use it for sports and other action photography and am having a problem justifying the extra cost for the E version of this lens, as the reviews for the older (and cheaper) version of this lens are great and I cannot find that much difference between the two.

Yeah. Exceptional lens. Only you can determine its worth to you.