authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

The new Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL lens is now out and the current rage but at $2595. As such, the Nikon 70-200 2.8F II dropped to just under $1200. I have the chance to pickup the Nikon 70-200 2.8G II for $899 and price is firm. Lens is used however is in mint condition and seller says he has not used it more than 5 times. He prefers his older version as it is not as heavy. I have tried out the lens. Focus is fast and VR works as it should. No hiccups or strange noises. Lens is clean, clear, scratch free and no signs of fungus. Lens appears to functions as is should. I guess my question is can anyone who has had experience with the Nikon 70-200G II tell me their thoughts on this lens and tell me is it worth buying? Is this a good price or should I spend the extra $300 for a new lens?

Thanks

Bill_de Loc: US

The E version has been out for a while. I've had mine since 2019.
If you can find a new "G" version for only $300 more than used I would go for it. Unless it is grey market you would be entitled to the 5 year warranty from NikonUSA.

---

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

I agree. 300.00 for new with 5 years of protection from Nikon is the way I would go.

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

I had used an older 80-200 F2.8 AF-S for a long time, and knowing that the focus drive was problematic and the lens had reached its end of life (no more support), I just babied it - when it finally broke, I got an older 80-200 AF-D which was enough for me given the amount of use I got out of the older one. The AF-S was a great lens, very sharp across the field, but was somewhat subject to flare in backlit/sidelit conditions.

I resisted buying the VR and the G VR II because I did not see either as a step up from the AF-S. And the focus breathing on the G VR II was terrible, dropping down to a field of view of 120mm lens at minimum focusing distance when zoomed to 200mm. So I passed on it. Then the game changer E-FL came out and I jumped on it. I got a good copy, (they did have some early sample variations), and couldn't be happier. The G II has excellent center sharpness, but the corners and edges do not match the center performance. The E-FL is good at all apertures and across the field, beating out the G II all the way around. If you can justify the cost, it is well worth it. Oh, and the focus breathing is not an issue.

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

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Thank you for the honest assessment! Would love to have the E-FL but $2300+ is out of my price range.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Three hundred would be my line to go for new. If he dropped the price by $400 or more, I’d but the used lens.

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

I owned the G VRII version before buying the FL version. There is nothing wrong with the VRII G version, it is very sharp, and the price is not bad considering he has only used it 5 times.
I would just add to make sure it is a USA lens in case, down the road, you should need service. (the box would be nice too)
A quick look at ebay show's they are selling around $700to $1300.00 range depending on condition.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1311&_nkw=nikon+70-200mm+f%2F2.8+vr+ii&_sacat=0

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

Serial number starts with US, this was the first thing I checked.
Want nothing to do with Grey Market items. Not worth the headache.

Thanks for your input sir, greatly appreciated!

tcthome Loc: NJ

I have it & it is a very good lens. I purchased mine new back in spring of 2016 during the Nikon sale & pretty sure it was $200 off & it was either $1900 or $2100 on sale back then. I would go with the used lens for that price but that is me. You should be pleased with it. About 6 months after the FL version came out & it is supposed to yield better results. Back then it was around $2700-2800. Now, if you have the money & don't mind spending it on the lens, you could go to a Camera store, put the photos on your camera , take a couple of photos, go home & put the photos on your computer & decide if the extra cost is worth it. If you decide to go with the FL version you can wait for a sale or, get this one & sell the other after buying the FL on sale in the future. Nikon usually runs sales in the spring & near the winter holidays.

tcthome Loc: NJ

FL is $2350 new & the g vr-2 is selling for 2k but out of stock.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not use the lens you are referring to. I still use the old circa 1974 Nikkor 80-200 f4.5 manual focus lens. Why the old lens instead of a new one? The answer is an easy one, this lens is sharp all across the aperture range, excellent in the corners and enlargements from its files hold all details.
If I was in the market for a new lens I would go for the 70-200 f4 VR. I do not need the f2.8 aperture. If I was going to shoot portraits with it I can shoot at f4 and keep the background farther away from the subject for a pleasant bokeh.

I know that you want the expensive version of these lenses so my comments only reflect what I would do. In regard to the 80-200 f4.5 I will keep using it till it dies. I recently bought a 70-210 f3.5-5.6 version (not D) and the lens is sharp but not sharper than my old 80-200 if that matters to anyone.
It is my understanding that the D version focus slightly faster but optics are the same.

photoman43

I own and recommend the Nikon 70-200mm f4 G ED VR lens. New it costs about $1400. Its image quality is outstanding and its weight and footprint is a lot less than its f 2.8 cousin.

If you do not need the extra stop of light check it out.

Your option to buy a f2.8 used looks like a good deal to me.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have a 70-200mm VR f2.8 that I bought probably 13 or 14 years ago, when I was shooting a D200. It has since served on my D300, D500, D810, and D850. It was when purchased and continues until today an outstanding lens. Comparisons with other similar lenses reveal some differences with newer models, and while these are great to know about, in reality, they make little or no difference in actual use. Any of them should do just fine on your D750. While some of the lenses are heavier than others, the simple fact of life is that they are all heavy. And I agree with Gene that "focus breathing" is not an issue when it occurs at the long end and closer distances.

A risk with any lens is that as it ages, the leaves of the diaphragm may get oily and sticky. Sometimes it slows the action down, sometimes it limits the range of adjustment, and sometimes it just completely freezes them up and prevents any movement and adjustment at all. The only solution is disassembly and complete cleaning. In my experience, the larger the overall diaphragm diameter, the greater risk. This shouldn't prevent you from buying a used lens, but it is good to keep it in mind.

And right now, there is absolutely no way to predict the future value of any of these lenses. If the mirrorless promoters on this forum have their way, the value may get pretty low pretty soon. So if it were me, I'd just rank order the lenses in the order that I would prefer to have them, then write the prices beside them and work down the list until I reached one that had a price below my budget cutoff.

Good luck. And remember that this is a hobby. It is supposed to be fun, not raise your blood pressure.

wetreed

I would go with the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2. I compared it to the Nikon and it was just better at a very good price.

Bill_de Loc: US

Could you expound on "just better"?

--