Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada

Looking to comments and suggestions on this lens. I shoot sports, basketball, volleyball, etc. Is this lens worth the upgrade from 70-200 2.8 vr?
Thank you in advance.
Jules

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Jules, Great review.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/field-nikon-70-200-f28-g-and-e-lenses-compared

Designdweeb Loc: Metro NYC & East Stroudsburg, PA

In my experience, it focuses faster in low light, congested or fast-moving scenerios

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

Wish I had seen this a week ago!

droaden

Very good upgrade. Went to the vrII after borrowing lens while my vr was in shop. I work for newspaper an shoot primary sports.

jacklewis014

Best lens I have ever owned. I had the VR and have never regretted the upgrade.

Largobob

I don't have the upgrade, but if image quality is anything like the original (AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8. ED), it is absolutely amazing. Based on all reports, the newest version is the one to covet.

HT

Depends on your body.

If your camera body is a DX then I don’t think it’s worth the upgrade. A DX uses the centre of the image circle and there nothing between the two lenses in the centre, the VRII’s improvements are predominantly at the edges, outside that portion of the image circle used by a DX.

If you shoot FX then you will see some improvements, markedly less vignetteing when shooting wide open, and improved sharpness out at the edges when shooting with wide to mid-apertures.

Vignetteing is easy to fix in post, and only you can assess the value of improved sharpness at the edges of the frame.

The other difference of course is the improved implementation of VR. It’s not a big improvement though to be honest, but again only you can assess it’s worth to you.

My final observation is that I noticed the VR rendering was warmer than the VRII. Again, easily adjusted to taste.

I did upgrade my lens not long after the VRII was released. I’m happy enough that I did so, but only because I now use it on a D810. Up until I started using the D810, I could easily have continued living with the VR model.

delottphoto

I suggest one should consider the new Tamron version that is $1700 less money! I personally cannot justify the additional expense. I am shooting a wedding this weekend with my new Tamron lens. In any case, a 70-200 is a must have for any kind of serious photographer!

tomcat

Absolutely worth it. I have this lens and it stays on my D500 during the HS sports seasons. I have never seen a lens sharper than this copy I have and it has enabled me to get some "Sports Illustrated" quality cover shots.

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

I'll admit, it's sharpness and focus speed, "knocked my socks off" so, yeah, get it if you can. It's not bad for portraits, either but, for my style, PP is required 'cause it's a little too sharp...

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

I would go right past the VR II and get the FL. It is so much sharper wide open at all focal lengths than the VR II. It's worth the upgrade to that.

The VR II is no slouch, the FL just sets the image quality bar that much higher. This review compares both lenses.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-fl-vr

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

Sorry, I'm talking 'bout the E FL... yeah, go with that one

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Buy the new one and sell the one you have now. That will be a substantial financial assist.

BentleyB

I was still using the 80-200 2.8 until this past January. Thought about buying a used Vr II, but rented the FL first. I bought the FL. It's wonderful on my D810. I could have waited two years for the price to drop but very happy to have it now. The focus speed and sharpness are amazing.