JD750 Loc: SoCal

DDD, I have both those lenses and the 24-70 pretty much lives on my camera, and I use the 70-200 less, but no way I'm selling it. ;). However when the 70-200mm FX lens is mounted on the D7100 the field of view equivalent to 105-300, that's long. Even the field of view of the 24-70mm mounted on the D7100 is equivalent to 36-105mm. The 36 to 105 zoom range is normal to slightly long (on the DX body). What I am suggesting is that you might be happier with a lens that has a wide to slightly long zoom range. That will give you more flexibility with group shots, etc. Maybe even consider a DX lens instead of full frame. You will save money and a lot of weight by going with a DX lens. Food for thought?

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

PayPal is the most common form of payment here also.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

If you can live with f4, another one I like is the FX Nikon 24-120 f4G. It's an inch shorter, half a pound lighter, and more reach than the 24-70. You can get a refurb for about $500.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That is a great lens in good light!

But keep in mind he has an DX camera. So it won't be the same as on a full frame.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

Considering "Main goal is family vacation and home photographs" and you are shooting DX and you have a 18-200/3.5-5.6.
I would sell the 70-200 on eBay or this site.
I would buy a wide angle Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 This will give you a much better overall range. (DX=16mm-300mm) I would also sell the 50mm f1.8 and get a 35mm f1.8, that would give you a 50mm field of view on DX and a fast walk around lens.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Did you know that the 70-200mm f/2.8 is considered one of Nikon's "golden trio"? The other two are the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8. If you sell it, you will lose money and may kick yourself later for not giving this fine lens a chance.

People will look at you no matter what camera and lens you have! Get used to it... And instead of being embarrassed, be PROUD of the fact that you are using good equipment to capture important moments in your children's lives. Much better than using a cell phone.

Here is a suggestion: Take a couple of pictures with your 18-200, then switch lenses and take a couple with the 70-200, using the same settings and similar distance from subject. When you get home, compare them on your computer screen. If you cannot see any difference, I will be surprised. It will be even more evident if you take some photos in low-light conditions...

The big advantage of having a long zoom is that you do not have to be as close to the subject to get a good photo. Imagine trying to take a picture of kids in a ball game - you cannot get on the field with them, so with a shorter focal length you will get a wider angle of view, but you will have to do more cropping to show facial expressions, etc. And using an FX lens on a DX camera provides an apparent increase in reach! It will still be a 200mm shot, but there will be more of your subject in the frame than with a DX lens set at 200mm.

Whether you keep the lens or not is up to you. But use it some first before you decide. Do the test I suggested. Look at the images closely on your computer screen. I already have the 24-70mm f/2.8, and the 14-24mm f/2.8 is next on my wish list. Currently using the 70-300mm f/4-5.6, but eventually would like to trade it in for the 70-200mm f/2.8.

Here are a couple of examples to illustrate the advantages of a good long zoom. College baseball, I had to stay far out of the playing field; college football, I was in the grandstand! There was a fair amount of cropping, but I had to take a wider angle of view because of the constant movement... Also, the faces are purposely blurred or darkened during post-processing.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I'll have to get one of them.

JimBart Loc: Western Michigan

Using the old adage " try it you might like it" is what I would say It may become your all around lens I hated mine at one point in time but forced myself to use it for 6 mos. and now I wont take it off the camera..... very versatile

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

You've bought one of the 3 lenses most pros use for a FX camera. Now you want to buy another expensive FX lens? Why not buy the 24-85 f4 VR Nikon? It'll cost less than $500. Or the 24 -120 f4 VR. You are buying way too much expensive glass rather than learning how to shoot with what you have!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I'm wondering how 11-16 translates to 16-300... ?

Actually that 50 mm lens on a DX body makes a great combo for events like weddings and Baptisms, recitals, where you are little farther back from the action. It also makes a great portrait lens on the DX. It is a sharp and fast lens and it is a great value as the cost point is minimal for that focal length.

But everybody has their own likes and dislikes. To each is own.

Colinus

Also, if you use FaceBook, look at NRDG Nikon Buy & Sell Group to get a feel for what others are asking for this lens used. When I purchase my next camera I'm moving from cropped frame to FF and the 70-200 2.8 VR II is the first lens on my list to purchase.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

11-16 does not translate to 16-300mm, the OP already has a 18-200mm so 11-16mm=16-24mm and 18-20mm=27-300mm

Also 50mm would =75mm on DX, great for portraits but limited in tight spaces. It can is more useful to have a 35=50mm IMO

JD750 Loc: SoCal

[quote=par4fore]11-16 does not translate to 16-300mm, the OP already has a 18-200mm so 11-16mm=16-24mm and 18-20mm=27-300mm

Also 50mm would =75mm on DX, great for portraits but limited in tight spaces. It can is more useful to have a 35=50mm IMO[/quote

Now 18-20 = 27-300?

Re 50 va 35 mm for DX, read my earlier post you will see I said pretty much the same thing. I think we are in violent agreement.