skornfeld

I am deciding between the two lenses and there's about an $800 difference, almost $1,000 if I can still find a refurbished VRII model. I would be putting it on a Nikon 7200, yes I know it is a FX lens on a DX camera and I don't anticipate changing to a FX camera in the future. I would describe myself as an obsessed amateur. Besides a nikon 50 1.8 I also have a Nikon 16-80 2.8-4DX (which I really) and a Tamron 16-300 3.5-6.3 which I want to replace as I'm not thrilled with it anymore (got it with the camera). I shoot mostly landscape, grandkids (inside and outside at sports) and travel photos.

My question is from the reviews I've read the MAIN IQ difference is at the edges wide open. Since I'm looking at 2 constant aperture lens being able to use it wide open is important to me. But since I'd be using it on a DX camera does that make the edge sharpness a moot point since my camera is cropping it anyway? I realize there are other differences, but they aren't worth the $800 to me. I had also looked at a tamron 70-200 constant 2.8 which is considerably cheaper but it seems from the reviews it is kind of hit or miss as to focusing problems with a Nikon.

What do you think?

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I would opt for the less expensive alternative in your case. You are correct that the cropped sensor will eliminate the edge issues. If you ever decide to switch to an FX body, you could trade up if you feel it is necessary. I am over 70-years old and principally use a D800. I buy the VRII lenses because they do a good job of compensating for my shaky hands.

WoodnMetalGuy Loc: MN

Yes, sounds like edge sharpness would be a moot point for you using it on DX sensor. And you might even want to look for the previous version of the 70-200, which vignettes on FX sensor but works great on DX, and should be cheaper yet. -- Dave

skornfeld

Thank you

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I own the 70-200 2.8 G VR ll; and it is great. It is hard to imagine that the E model can be that much better. But, the reviews suggest that there is a notable difference.
Like other lens purchases, one has to decide if the small but undeniable difference is worth the money--like buying a 1.4 prime instead of the 1.8. It you buy the better lens, then you know you have the best, and will not look back---until an upgrade is announced.
And, you only live once.

skornfeld

The main thing seems to be edge iq which my crop camera seems to negate and it is lighter by a stick of butter. Nothing else stuck out which is why I asked the question. Normally I wouldn't hesitate but $800 is real money and almost another lens.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I am extremely pleased with my VRII. As has been said, I can't imagine an improvement to my images with the E model. I use it on my D7100 regularly. I'd save the money. But, that's me.

skornfeld

I just ordered it as a early birthday present from B&H from my wife. She even knows about it.

Thanks to everyone for the input.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Right. In real life, would you really notice any difference? For $800 - $1,000, you could buy another good lens.

In case you want comparisons, below is a list of 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/
http://lenshero.com/comparison/Nikon-AF-S-80-400mm-f4.5-5.6G-ED-VR-vs-Nikon-AF-S-200-500mm-f5.6E-ED-VR

Jim Bob

The 2.8 E FL is in a class by itself. Period. Only you can decide if it's worth the price differential to you.

jcwood

What Jim Bob said above.

John Bob

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

One of the biggest differences is that the FL focuses a foot closer, if you do portraits this is important, both focus quickly and both deliver outstanding IQ. I have not noticed a difference in sharpness between the two.

Jim Bob

As to sharpness comparison, Thom Hogan ((http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html) and most knowledgeable reviewers would disagree with your assertion.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As a former owner of the VR II and an owner, since release, of the E FL, I would COMPLETELY agree with Jim Bob on this one. The difference, optically, is amazing! The newest version does not have the focus breathing problem of the previous one, and the newest version also has focus controls near the front of the lens. For sports action work, which is my main thrust, I would have bought it just for those focus controls. Everytime I use it, I am just blown away by how good this new lens is. Please understand that the preceding rant is IMHO and not due to any scientific testing. How important is all of this to you -- I can't say. I'm happy, but I'm also getting paid for my work which helps, in a big way, to offset the costs. In comparison, I, personally, saw no need to purchase the VR version of the 24-70 so I am 'suffering' through with the non-vr version, so I do try to make my purchases count. (Whatever you do, stay away from the first VR version. I owned it and it was a dog!) Best of luck.

skornfeld

Thank you - bought the vrii as this is a hobby and the difference is almost another lens