rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Probably not. You've already got that range covered with your 28-300. So, what is this lens going to get you, other than less money in your bank account?

[aquote=Alpix]I am looking to add a new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 to the kit. Currently this range is covered by my nikon 28-300mm. Would the addition be worthwhile? I hear it's an excellent lense, but wondered if those with both in their kit may have advice. May also go for a 28-70mm f2.8 as a pair of lenses to cover the general range.
Thanks for any advice.[/quote]

BebuLamar

I do not need the wider aperture but aren't the 2 zoom lenses sharper than the 28-300mm lens when use at f/5.6 and f/8.0 which are the 2 f stop I use most often?

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

You are welcome! I have the 24-70 and it is a great all-around lens, as long as you don't need closeups on a subject that is far away. I have heard good things about the 150-600mm, would love to have one of those very long lenses.

One note about the 14-24mm is that it does not take filters. If you are big on using filters, you would have to purchase a special system for this lens. But it is a great lens, and I have it on my wish list!

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is definitely a classic lens, and the newest version sounds great if you want to spend the extra money ($2,800). But I would not be hesitant about buying the current version, especially if I could get it for less than the current $2,100 price at B&H for a new lens. Pre-owned or refurbished...

It is difficult to comprehend what that salesperson was thinking! Bet the boss doesn't know... Look online at B&H for new or pre-owned, at Nikon's website for refurbished. Best to deal with trusted vendors when buying online. Maybe you should go back to the store when the boss is working?

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Sonce you have a lens that goes from wide to long why buy another telephoto? If I were you I would start buying prime lenses of the F1.8 or faster variety. I find prime lenses to be superior to telephotos in sharpness and lens speed. I have looked for fast telephotos and the few that are out there cost a lot and the fastest they go is F3.5 for the most part. I have 3 telephotos and one of these I no longer use since the other two are 55 to 300mm and 18 to 55mm. Both are F3.5 and F4. I have begun buying the prime lenses for the speed like an F1.8. Had I gotten the lens you have I would have just skipped two or all three of my telephoto lenses.

Sphinxman

Are you using a full frame or crop sensor? Just curious.

mrfisher77 Loc: Mayfield Heights, Ohio

If you have the funds available, you will never regret the decision. I purchased a used, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, that was made in 2008, on eBay, in MINT condition for $926. Came with everything as if it were new. Box, manual, warranty card, case, hood...like new for under $1k. Deals are out there.

Having said that, this lens is a dream. Sure it's heavy. I have five kids that are all in sports. Most are in indoor sports. The fast lens has saved me. That lens coupled to my D750 is absolutely a dream to shoot with. Zero regrets...

Regards,

Mark

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I noticed no one seems to mention prime lenses anymore. If you are a true photographer the weight of any lens or camera case does not matter. You are in it to get the right shot and portraits or weddings seem to always have been better with sharp prime lenses than with zooms. Zooms these days seem have more plastic lenses inside the lens than they used to have. Plastic can make a lens be lighter but glass makes a sharper lens. As for the 70 to 200mm I would never use it much I need the 300mm to get the sports shots I am paid to shoot. Actually I am looking into a 400 mm lens for that reason. I have seen a couple that are 150 to 400mm but the F stop is always too high a number to suit the football low light level. Soccer is also a test of a lens a 70 to 200mm lens is what most of the dads shooting from the sidelines have. They complain and ask me how to and I just tell them get a longer lens and at least a Nikon D7200 and learn how to use it.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

I purchased the new 300mm f/4 VR recently. Light(26 oz.) and very sharp, the VR is a joy. Mounted on my D7100 I am always impressed with it. A bit pricey but you seem to forget that when you see the images it produces. At 76, the 70-200 2.8 (56 oz.)tends to wear me out a little faster every year. If the 300 is a little long for what I am shooting I switch it to the full frame and that usually corrects the problem.
It has quickly become one of my favorite lenses. The 300 f/4 and Nikon's new 20mm 1.8 are by far my most used lenses.
Like you, prime lenses are becoming more and more attractive.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Xactly, Kmgw9v, which is why the 28-300 is a great lens. HOWEVER, on last year's trip to Santa Fe and Taos, the 24-70 never came off my D800. Even with the 28-300 handy. However, that was just that trip. The 28-300 was great in San Francisco and Big Sur.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Two comments ...

"If you are a true photographer the weight of any lens or camera case does not matter." I think as you get older you will discover that age does have an effect on how much weight we are able to carry. I have a friend in his late eighties who has always been a "true photographer" as you put it, but a couple of years ago he got to the point where he couldn't even manage to use his small camera. Unless you feel that true photographers are also immortal, you may want to rethink your assertions.

"I noticed no one seems to mention prime lenses anymore." Yes that's true. Back in the seventies when I was shooting film practically all my lenses were primes. Over the decades though the zooms got better and they are a lot more convenient when it comes to travel or events. I remember travelling with three primes and a zoom back then. It was a lot of weight too, though less than now, and worse, I was constantly changing lenses. With the zooms the endless lens changes are minimized.

So it's the zooms that get all the attention these days. And why not? There's that trend towards mirrorless cameras, and of course the cell phone camera probably has the largest fan base of all. As a photographer that disappoints me but as a human I'm not surprised. I remember my late mother with her instamatic camera. It took lousy pictures, the colours were muddy, the exposures were lousy, the pictures were generally fuzzy. But she loved it. As long as it took colour pictures and as long as she could make out the faces that's all that was important. It's up to us to keep the traditions alive and we seem to be doing that relatively well, there are the odd discussions on primes over zooms and as long as that continues there is hope.

DDD

My apologies to be unclear. I assumed it implied to original heading of this thread, but to be very precise: Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II (Nano Crystal Coat)

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Totally agree on the 300mm f4 VR PF (26 ounces). A joy to use and superb image quality. f4 as opposed to f5.6 is more even valuable than I anticipated for fast action. Do switch from my D7100 to D750 on occasion, but I was surprised at how rarely 300mm is too "long" on the crop sensor camera.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

As far as I know major lens makers such as Nikon do not use plastic instead of glass for any actual lens optical element, not even for the cheapest "kit" zooms. If I am wrong about this, would like to be corrected.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Phil....I've been thinking about that lens for awhile. Now I've heard that the latest 80-400mm is also very good, so I'd want to compare it against the 300mm f4. I'm also tempted by the "sale" price of the D500. Either of those lenses on the D500 would be a great combination.

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Having VR on a prime was the main attraction for me Steve, I didn't expect the sharpness and the extreme quality of the images. The lightness was icing on the cake! You owe it to yourself to try one.