SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

The suggestion about the Nikon 80 to 200 f2.8D is a good one since it is an older lens with very good optics and can be obtained for $500 to $600 used. However, it is the heaviest lens that I have every owned since it is all metal construction and built like a tank. If you are not much of hiker this lens may be for you since the optics for both distance and for portraits is very high.

Ira

If you are willing to go to an f4. The Nikon 70-200 f4 is a super lens. It is very sharp, as small as the 70-300, but much sharper. It is much lighter then any of the 2.8 lenses. It is also almost half the price of the new 70-200 2.8.
This is a shot that I took with a D7200 and the Nikon 70-200 f4

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm

(Download)

oldie65 Loc: Miamisburg Ohio

Don't get any better than this.beautiful

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have had the first version of this lens since shortly after it was introduced. It is a big, heavy lens, but generally pretty easy to manage. It did not replace any other lens, but just gave me added capability.

Here is my reasoning around your question: Most of us probably shoot somewhere in the middle of our lenses' capability most of the time, which means that the comments about speed not mattering most of the time are generally correct...most of the time. BUT...the difference between f6.3 and f2.8 is about two and a half stops. What this means for me is that when shooting in limited light in an unanticipated hand-held situation, if I open the aperture all the way, I can have a shutter 6 times faster than with the slower lens. A real example would be shooting at close to 1/200 second instead at 1/30. This is easily the difference between a sharp image and a blurred one at 200 mm.

And the lens is just superbly sharp and well-behaved.

As for DX vs, FX, you just have to decide what path to follow. I have long-term plans to add an FX camera in the future (primarily to add better wide-angle capability), so for me, it makes sense to buy FX lenses. They work perfectly on my DX bodies. It costs more now, but will avoid my having to immediately buy new lenses for the new body.

I am sure that if you decide to go ahead that you will be happy with the 70-200.

Larry

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

I have it and love it. It i fixed at F2.8 o the difference in F top could be significant. It i also one of Nikon's professional lenses and is very sharp.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

-----

Check out the Nikkor 70-200 f4 lens. It is as sharp or sharper than any of the 2.8s. At half the price, it is much lighter and IMO handles better.

Remember that in equivalent focal lengths you'll going from a 105-450mm to a 105-300mm lens.

-----

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

High quality glass and worth the price, IMO. Whether or not you need the extra stop depends on how you will use the lens in low light.

GraveyDave

I had an old 70-200 f/2.8 from the film era and it worked great with digital. When I borrowed my friend's newest version, I honestly couldn't believe how quickly it snapped into focus and how sharp the images were. That was about 8 years ago. I'm told the newer ones are almost a stop faster than the one I have. It's a tough concept to get used to but just take your fixed 50mm lens and shoot it at f/8 and then take your long lens and do the same. Using aperture preferred (and keeping the same f/stop), you will see a difference at what the camera gives you for shutter speed. So, although they are both at f/8, in order to go through all the elements in a longer lens it has less light reaching the sensor and for the right exposure you need a slower shutter speed. In other words lenses are made differently and the upgrades are, in fact, better working as advertised.
The newer lenses like the very popular 70-200 f/2.8 are made better. If I could afford one (and the Nikon D5- ha ha) I would get it in a second. Believe me, the crisp focus and better color and contrast is worth it. Just check out a scene you shoot with a tamron or sigma lens then pop on your nikon lens. They look very different right off the camera. You can make the images from different brand lenses look the same in PP but they don't off the camera.
Get the best body and newest lenses you can afford especially if you are not getting the results you want.

Dbl00buk Loc: Orlando

I have both the 70-300 VR and the 70-200 VRII. The 70-300 has done well for me, but the 70-200 VRII, truly a beast and all that, however, let me just say this... when I die, I told my wife there better be enough room in my casket to fit it in!

Bill_de Loc: US

Keep in mind the 50 is looking at a wider scene, so unless you are looking at an evenly illuminated blank wall there may be another variable at play.

--

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

That is a good point and would have to be taken into consideration. Newer lenses though, because of many factors like lens materials and lens coatings plus computer aided design, often will have much better LT(light transmission) specs than their older counter parts.

Robeng Loc: California

I have this lens and love it even though it has some quirks. Here's my opinion.

Pros for me: I shoot a lot of models on the move so the VR comes in handy, this lens focus faster than either of the first two generations, It's smaller and lighter than the 2nd generation. It doesn't have the focus breathing problem the 2nd generation has. It produce great images.

Cons for me: Nikon switched the focus ring and zoom ring on this lens, so if you're use to using Nikon lenses the relocation of the rings can be annoying. It has those lock buttons on the lens, I don't understand why. I never use them. Last thing is cost, even with my discount this lens is not cheap.

So if you want the latest & best Nikon 70mm-200mm f/2.8 lens then buy this lens. If you don't need the latest & greatest get the 2nd generation which is still a great lens.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Without a doubt the new camera and lenses are the best ever and will continue to improve marginally until new technology makes it archaic. I think most of us already do get the best (in our minds) we can afford.

BTW great image.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Good idea. Some links to reviews below, but these may not be the newest lenses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAeoB1F7nI
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=946&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

GraveyDave

mock ufc fighting by dancers