Overview
The latest generation of the 70-200mm lens is no exception – Nikon completely redesigned the lens, adding more “ED” (Extra-Low Dispersion) optical elements, making this lens sharper than the previous version. Nikon also added the new “N” (Nano Crystal Coating) to this lens, which is supposed to minimize ghosting and lens flare. Other new features include a brand new “VR II” vibration reduction system, which provides a four stop benefit over non-VR systems and a new “A/M” focus mode for auto-focus priority.
So, compared to the older 70-200mm (which is a superb lens), this lens is supposed to deliver better sharpness and vibration reduction, better resistance to ghosting and flares and less vignetting on full frame bodies (which was a major weakness of the older lens). In this review, I will do my best to provide a thorough analysis of this lens, along with image samples and comparisons against other Nikon lenses.
1) Technical specifications
These are taken from the Nikon press release.
- Focal length: 70-200mm
- Maximum aperture: f/2.8
- Minimum aperture: f/22
- Lens construction: 21 elements in 16 groups (with 7 ED and some Nano Crystal Coat-deposited lens elements)
- Picture angle: 34°20’ – 12°20’ (22°50’ – 8° with Nikon DX format)
- Closest focusing distance: 1.4 m/4.6 ft. (throughout entire zoom range)
- No. of diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded)
- Filter/attachment size: 77mm
- Diameter x length (extension from lens mount): Approximately 87 x 205.5 mm/3.4 x 8.1 in.
- Weight: Approximately 1,540 g/3.4 lb.
2) Lens handling
Just like its predecessors, the new Nikon 70-200mm VR II lens is built like a tank to last a lifetime. It is made of solid metal and can easily withstand tough weather, occasional bumps and is well protected against dust and moisture. The 21 optical elements within the lens, along with the metal body add to the weight – making it 3.4 pounds in total weight, which makes it necessary to hold the lens with one hand, while holding the camera with another. The lens feels solid in hands and the zoom ring is easy to rotate from 70 to 200mm and vice versa. The focus ring is located close to the zoom ring, making it easy to reach it with fingers for manual focus, without having to move the hand to the front of the lens barrel. Compared to the older version of this lens, the zoom ring is a little longer, while the focus ring is a little shorter, which was a smart move by Nikon. After-all, this lens is created for automatic focusing and the focus ring does not get nearly as much use as the zoom ring.
3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
When it comes to speed of focus acquisition, the 70-200mm is one of the best performers in the Nikon line of professional lenses. The lens autofocus system with SWM (Silent Wave Motor) is quiet, while focusing is instant and accurate, even in low light conditions. I recently shot a corporate event with this lens and I was amazed at the speed and accuracy of focus when mounted on an FX sensor. Here is a good example of how the lens focuses in a very dim environment:
As you can see in the picture, the room was poorly lit with candles and very dim light and yet the lens focused fast and dead-on, wide open at f/2.8. Out of approximately 250 pictures that I took that day, only about 5 were slightly out of focus, mainly due to the limited amount of light in the meeting room. Quick note: none of the test images have been processed in Photoshop – I extracted them as they were from Lightroom without making any changes.
4) Lens sharpness and contrast
I won’t go much into lens sharpness, because you can see all sample images yourself in the next several pages. But if you can’t wait, see the large version of the above picture – I shot it at f/2.8. This lens performs so well at f/2.8, that you wouldn’t want to shoot it at higher apertures, unless you need to increase the depth of field. In fact, once I saw how good the shots were coming out at f/2.8, I just kept shooting wide open and really loving the results! Best of all, the lens has consistent sharpness across the board, from 70mm all the way to 200mm. Color and contrast have also been improved over the previous 70-200mm.
5) Vibration Reduction – VR II
The new vibration reduction system in this lens is truly amazing! I loved my old 70-200mm, but it made me nervous to shoot it below 1/40-1/50th of a second. After I got the new 70-200mm VRII in my hands, I decided to see what I can get with this lens at much lower shutter speeds. Take a look at this shot:
Unbelievable! Tack sharp at 1/13th of a second at f/2.8! Good luck trying the same on the previous 70-200mm! The new vibration reduction system really works and you can get some magical shots with this lens. Wedding photographers will absolutely love this!
6) Bokeh
The bokeh on 70-200mm lenses has always been outstanding. Although I no longer have my old 70-200mm lens (I sold it at a higher price than what I paid for it 3 years ago) to compare with, I feel that the bokeh actually looks better on this lens than on its predecessor. I went through some of my archived images and I can say that the bokeh on the previous 70-200mm does look a little harsher, although I rarely shot the older lens wide open, due to softness at very large apertures between f/2.8 and f/4.0.
Anyway, I still had to do a bokeh test of this lens against the Nikon cream machine and the king of bokeh – Nikon 85mm f/1.4. Take a look at these image samples:
As you can see, the bokeh on the new 70-200mm VRII is very comparable to the bokeh of 85mm f/1.4 – it is very smooth and “creamy”.
7) Vignetting
Vignetting has been greatly reduced at lower focal lengths, but at 200mm it is still quite noticeable when shot against a plain bright background. Nothing to worry about though, as I could not spot vignetting on my images at 200mm – I only noticed it during testing. Here are some test shots that reveal vignetting @ 200mm at different apertures:
At higher apertures of f/8.0 and above, the effect is minimized to the degree where it is barely visible.
8) Ghosting and Flare
I haven’t yet performed a real test for ghosting and flare outside, but judging by what I have seen so far, the effects are almost completely gone – I did not see any ghosting while shooting indoors. I’m also sure that lens flare has been substantially reduced (due to “N” Nano-Coating), otherwise Nikon would not have changed the lens hood to be shorter and more open. Talking about the lens hood – I was able to squeeze the lens into my bag with the lens hood attached! I was never able to do that on my older lens, because it was too long and I had to reverse the hood to fit it into my camera bag.
9) Tripod Support
I rarely use this lens on a tripod, but if you need to mount it on a tripod for whatever reason, the tripod mount is very stable and sturdy, just like on its predecessor. Since nothing changed on the tripod mount and the leg is the same as on the previous model, I was able to re-attach my RRS “L-10 Lens Plate” on the lens leg and it worked perfectly! When mounted on a tripod, don’t forget to turn “VR” off.
10) Distortion
This lens is practically distortion-free. There is a slight amount of it on both short and long focal lengths (barrel and pincushion), but nothing to be worried about. When you use this lens for architectural work and for photographing textures and patterns, you can fix the minor distortion in Photoshop very easily by using the Lens Correction filter.
11) Increased Field of View
The new Nikon 70-200mm VR II has a larger FoV (Field of View or Angle of View) compared to the older version at close focus distances. I spotted the difference while doing a comparison of this lens against the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S. With a 1.7x teleconverter mounted on the lens, I could not produce a similar field of view at 300mm when standing very close to the subject – the lens was far off. Even at 340mm (200mm x 1.7x TC) the lens was shorter than what Nikon 300mm was giving me, which is not good news for those who want to use this lens for close telephoto work. When I did a similar comparison with my older 70-200mm, I didn’t have that big of a difference, so there is definitely a loss in magnification at both short and long focal lengths when in close focus. If you stand further away (15+ feet) from the subject with focus near infinity, the field of view issue goes away and the focal length returns back to normal. This happens due to focus “breathing”, an effect when focal length changes with the change in focus distance.
So, how pronounced is this difference, especially on the long end at 200mm? At the closest focus distance (4.6 feet) @ 200mm, the lens is like a 135mm lens. As you move about 10 feet away from the subject, the focal length changes to approximately 165mm-170mm. When the lens is near infinity, the focal length is very close to actual 200mm. Does this present a problem? Not really. If you are taking a picture of a subject at a close distance and you are getting a larger field of view, simply get closer to the subject. At longer distances and when focused close to infinity, the new and the older lens have almost exactly the same field of view (near 200mm).
Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page from the drop-down below.
Sharpness Test
Sharpness Test
Some technical junk:
- White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3700 Temp, +11 Tint in Lightroom
- ISO: 200
- EXIF information is preserved in the images
- Lens was mounted on Nikon D700 FX Camera and Gitzo tripod
- Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
- Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
- Long exposure NR: Off
- Image Format: RAW
- Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted (-.20 to +.033) to make sure that all images have the same brightness
- Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
- Testing was performed at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 apertures. I rarely use this lens above f/8.0 and did not see the point of doing tests at very high apertures
- Nothing was moved during testing
12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 70mm Center Frame
This lens performs incredibly well at all apertures @ 70mm in the center of the frame. I tried to compare the images and could not spot any difference.
13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 70mm Corner Frame
Corners also look very good, although there is slight softness at f/2.8. At f/4.0, the image looks tack sharp all the way to f/8.0.
14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 105mm Center Frame
Again, the center of the frame is super sharp all the way from f/2.8 to f/8.0!
15) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 105mm Corner Frame
Same story as with 70mm – the image is a little softer at f/2.8, but sharp starting from f/4.0.
16) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 200mm Center Frame
Center frame @ 200mm is as sharp as the other focal lengths throughout the aperture range.
17) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm @ 200mm Corner Frame
Corners look a little soft @ f/2.8, but very sharp starting from f/4.0.
Use with Nikon TC-14E II Teleconverter
18) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 70mm (100mm) Center Frame
The lens works incredibly well with the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter at all apertures, even wide open at f/4.0. I could not see any difference between the above shots.
19) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 70mm (100mm) Corner Frame
As expected, there is some softness to the image at f/4.0 in the corners, due to slight softness of this lens in the corners at f/2.8 without a teleconverter. But at f/5.6 and above, the softness is completely gone.
20) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 105mm (150mm) Center Frame
Again, very sharp in the center at all apertures.
21) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 105mm (150mm) Corner Frame
Corners are again a little soft wide open at f/4.0, but nothing to be too worried about.
22) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 200mm (280mm) Center Frame
Can’t tell the difference between the images – everything is tack sharp.
23) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.4x TC-14E II Teleconverter @ 200mm (280mm) Corner Frame
Same thing, corners are a little soft at maximum aperture.
Use with Nikon TC-17E II Teleconverter
24) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 70mm (120mm) Center Frame
I’m not sure if I got a very good sample of the lens, but the performance with a 1.7x teleconverter is surprisingly good. My previous sample of the 70-200mm VRI was nowhere close in comparison with a 1.7x TC. On the VRI version of the 70-200, the lens would have a hard time acquiring focus with a 1.7x TC in a dim environment. This lens focused marginally better in a similar environment with the same teleconverter. Again, the center frame looks about the same between f/4.8 to f/8.0
25) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 70mm (120mm) Corner Frame
As expected, the corners are a little soft at f/4.8, but sharp at f/5.6 and above.
26) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 105mm (180mm) Center Frame
Same thing as with 1.4x TC – center is very sharp at all apertures.
27) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 105mm (180mm) Corner Frame
Slight softness at f/4.8.
28) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 200mm (340mm) Center Frame
The center suffers a little bit at 200mm and f/4.8, but is back to normal at f/5.6 and above.
29) Sharpness Test – Nikon 70-200mm with Nikon 1.7x TC-17E II Teleconverter @ 200mm (340mm) Corner Frame
Corners look about the same as the center at f/4.8.
Use with Nikon TC-20E III Teleconverter
One of our readers, Ron Wales, provided some test image samples from his Nikon 70-200mm VR II + TC-20E III setup on a Nikon D700 body. Historically, the previous-generation Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR performed poorly with a 1.7x TC and even worse with the 2.0x TC. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the latest Nikon 70-200mm VR II works beautifully with all three teleconverters and provides acceptably sharp results with the new Nikon TC-20E III teleconverter.
Take a look at the following 100% crops:
Performance wide open @ 200mm without a teleconverter for comparison:
And here is a full-size version of the above shot at 400mm f/11.
Some notes from Ron: The images are hand-held and I visually matched image scale between the 200mm and 400mm shots using the viewfinder grid. I’m probably off by a few percent between the images but it’s close enough for our purpose here. As you can see, the 200mm @ f/2.8 cropped image is very sharp. The 400mm @ 5.6 image drops off a little and f/11 brings it back. The bottom line here is that we are “pixel peeping” in this exercise. If you view these images at 100% it’s hard to tell the difference. I think the Nikkor 70-200 VRII coupled with the TC 20EIII is a winning combination.
I am very impressed by this performance and I honestly did not expect a zoom lens to be this good with a 2x teleconverter.
Big thanks to Ron Wales for providing these images!
Lens Comparisons
Compared to Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S
30) Nikon 70-200mm VR II vs Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S
As I pointed out in page 1 of this review, there is a magnification issue with the new 70-200mm VR II. Because of this, it was a little difficult to make a fair comparison between the excellent Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S and the 70-200mm VR II. After many trials and errors and moving the setup back and forth, I was able to photograph an equivalent field of view on both lenses and compare sharpness at 300mm (Left: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, Right: Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S).
The Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S is still sharper (and it should be, because there is no TC attached to it) compared to Nikon 70-200mm VR II with a 1.7x TC-17E II. However, the image from the 70-200mm is NOT much worse when it comes to sharpness! When I compared the older 70-200mm VRI to my 300mm lens, it was much softer wide open at f/4.8, so there is definitely a big difference in lens performance, especially at maximum aperture.
Summary and Image Samples
Summary and Image Samples
31) Summary
The new Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II is clearly a better lens than its predecessor. As can be seen from the image examples in this review, the performance of this lens is outstanding at maximum apertures throughout the focal lengths and the new VR II system clearly helps in getting shake-free images at low shutter speeds of 1/50 and below. Nikon did an outstanding job in addressing the problems with vignetting on FX bodies and the Nano Coating should help to minimize ghosting and flare issues the older lens suffered from. The only two drawbacks that I can think of are price and decreased magnification. With a $2,400 price tag, which is equivalent to what a brand new Nikon D700 costs today, it definitely does not fall into an “affordable” category. The decreased magnification is not good news for those who need the reach, but is not necessarily bad for portrait photographers, because they can fit more, if needed. Professionals that work in challenging conditions and could use the sharpness and the new vibration reduction feature will definitely buy and appreciate the lens, while others might look at the older version as a good alternative, especially if they are shooting on DX bodies.
32) Where to buy
The lens is currently available at all big resellers. I personally pre-ordered mine from Adorama, but you can also find it in other stores like B&H. Nikon did a really good job in making sure that the lens gets in stock on time at all major camera stores, just like they did with the Nikon D3s.
33) More Image Samples
All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
About Nasim Mansurov
Salam! Thank you for the awesome and detailed review. I also got the VRII recently and am loving it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/armughan/4163658857/
Trekker,
Va Aleykum Salam! You are more than welcome, thank you for your feedback! I’m glad that you liked the review :)
Looking forward for some nice shots from your new lens, I really liked your website!
Would this lens be good for landscape shots as well? I am looking for a top notch quality for my nature shots. I plan on getting the 24mm f/1.4 ED VR already, think it would be wise to sell my 70-300mm VR for this upgrade?
WOW, amazing review, I ended buying the 70-200 VRII and the tc 1.7, and I am waiting my 2x III because your review, the quality is so good, that make sense, for me at least, to get the 2.0 III and walk around with a cheap but very good 140-400 for no more than 3000…
Excellent review Nasim Mansurov
Great review and a great overall web site. I’ve just spent a few hours this raining Sunday looking through it. I’m buying a 300mm F4 with a 1.4TC for wildlife and I appreciate your reviews and your photo album.
God bless you and your family…….
Roy, thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment – we really appreciate your feedback!
You will absolutely love the Nikon 300mm f/4! It’s my workhorse lens and I really love the sharpness, the contrast and the bokeh this lens produces.
I’m looking forward to seeing your photographs from that beautiful lens! By the way, not that it matters, but what Nikon body do you currently own?
It was refreshing to see your excellently excecuted review amidst all the controversy of the focal length and focus distance. A truely detailed,fair, and honest review.
Thanks!
Ralph, thank you for your feedback – I truly appreciate it!
Nice review!
I also have this lens, shipped to my door right after thanksgiving. I’d like to add that the loss of FOV only occurs at focusing subjects less than infinity. Anything less than 10 meters, your 200mm end looks more like 165mm. I’ve taken over 1000 shots with this lens so far, both on my d700 and d3x and that lost of reach up close doesn’t bother me one bit.
I’d also like to add that on the D3x, where 24mp demands the best glass for that camera, the new 70-200 vr2 offers enough resolution to meet that demand. I’ve shot it wide open and absolutely love the results on my D3x. The main reason why I upgraded was to get some of that magic from the 200mm f2.0 vr produces wide open, while having subjects tack sharp, only at half the price.
Having said that, I would love for someone to post an in depth review/comparison between the new zoom vs 200mm f2.0 vr.
Thanks for the review, and good luck mansurov.
Binh,
Thanks so much for sharing! I agree with the FOV issue – it doesn’t bother me at all, either.
I would also love to see a comparison with the 200mm f/2.0 VR. It will still take the lead wide open, due to the shallower depth of field at f/2.0, but at f/2.8, the results might be interesting to look at…
Definitely agree the 200mm f2.0 chubby will win… curious to see by how much or how close the zoom is in terms of sharpness.
I will need to post some real 200mm f2.8 shots of recent work, will keep you updated.
Sounds good Binh! Looking forward to seeing your pictures!
This desert photo’s look so original I liked this photo.I think it is been taken by good professional photographer.thank you for such nice photo providing in your post
Thank you for your feedback. I’m glad that you liked my photograph of sand dunes!
Great lens. At 200mm hand held I get 100% sharp images at 1/15 sec, and 90%+ at 1/8 sec. Excellent edge sharpness (exceeded my expectations). 100% satisfied.
Robert, thank you so much for sharing and congratulations with your purchase! :) Being able to shoot 1/8th of a second hand-held is mind-blowing!
Hi! Actually i wasn’t to do so, i still have shakes. Any specific holding position i can do for me to get a better shot?
je suis content de lire ces infos à propos de nouveau 70 200, car ca fais un moment que je l’attends, mon 18 200 m’as laché car les lentille bougent très peu, et ça me fait un trai au milieu de l’écran, je ne sais pas combien ça me côuteras la réparation, j’ai un D300, ce n’est pas un full-frame, mais je suis un peu déçus qu’on peut pas profiter du Tc 17, car le 300mm est trop cher, je crois que cet objectif le 70 200 iras bien dans les spectacles ainsi que pour les portraits, je me réjouie de le tester.
Merci cordialement Mohamed
Mohamed,
Thank you for your feedback! The 70-200 would be a big upgrade for your 18-200 and it’s a whole different class of a lens. As far as the 1.7x TC is concerned, yes, the 300mm f/4.0 produces clearer images, but that’s quite normal, because it has no teleconverter attached to it. Still the 70-200mm VR II showed that it can perform very well with teleconverters. My old 70-200 came nowhere close in performance when used with a 1.7x TC…
If you need the reach, the 300mm would be a much better choice, because with a 1.4x TC it makes a superb 420mm lens. But for shooting portraits, the 70-200mm is a much better choice, because you can use a very shallow depth of field at f/2.8.
Great overview. I have a few questions if you don’t mind. I just moved into a new office and I have a studio that is about 16 feet deep. I am a photographer in San Diego and my primary business is as a youth sports and school photographer, but we just got the studio and are doing a lot more studio work. I’m thinking I should get a full frame camera, like the D700, but what is the best lens(s)? Do I get a prime lens? Right now I have 5 Fuji S5′s, 2 S3′s, 2 D200′s and a couple of Canons. Do I need the D700 for just studio work? I love the video on the 5d but the Nikon seems to have a slight edge on some of the other features. I am thinking of renting the D700 and maybe the 5D for a weekend with a couple of lenses to see what they feel like in the studio.
Or, am I just fine shooting with the S5′s, which are great portrait cameras, but I am a little limited with the 16 foot deep studio. 16 total feet, meaning once you get a tripod and backdrop stands, etc, it is even smaller. Any pointers?
Andy,
The Nikon D700 is a superb camera! I have been using it since it was announced and I’m waiting for the new D700s/D800 that’s due next year to replace our D300 that we use as a backup body.
As far as whether you should get a D700 or not – what lenses are you currently shooting with? Do you only use telephoto/portrait lenses, or do you also use wide-angle lenses in your studio? Do you take full body shots or headshots only? If you only shoot with telephoto and portrait lenses such as 85mm f/1.4, then the full frame sensor will make a huge difference in terms of field of view, compared to a 1.5x crop-sensor.
Either way, I would highly recommend to rent the D700 and try it out in your studio.
Thank you so much for this review! I should be getting my 70-200 lens on Monday. In the meantime, I’ve been scouring the web for reviews.
Love your site!
Happy New Year!
Frances,
Congratulations on your purchase. I love my 70-200mm and I’m sure you will love yours too!
Happy New Year to you and your family!
Mr Mansurov,
Great review. Thinking of getting this lens. However, what do think about this review by Greg Reinacker (http://www.gregrphoto.com/blog/2009/12/10/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8g-vr-ii-review/). Do you think the minimum distance will be a big problem for weddings photography?
HasrulAizan, thank you for stopping by and dropping a comment on our blog!
As far as the reduced focal length issue, I mention it under #11 above. Yes, it might be a slight problem if I need the reach, however, I know that I can always add a 1.4x teleconverter and shoot very sharp images at f/4.0, whereas with the older lens, I had to stop it down to f/4.0 to get the same sharpness.
If you weigh in all the advantages of the new VRII versus the single field of view disadvantage, for me at least, the benefits far outweigh the problem.
Thanks for sharing your view. I think its time to part with my trusty old 80-200 and join the VR club.
Tim, you are most welcome! I’m sure you will love the new 70-200mm, just like many other proud owners of this beautiful lens :)
Thanks for stopping by!
Thanks a lot for the great review and other tutorials. I had my 70-200mm VR for about five years and just loved it. After reading your review, I just ordered the VR II and it should be delivered today. I am an amateur and currently shooting with D300. Do you think I should replace my VR with the VR II? I am just not sure whether I made the right decision. Thanks! JP
JP, you are most welcome! Thanks for visiting us here :)
You absolutely made the right decision!!! I love my 70-200mm VR II and it is one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever held in my hands :) The bokeh is creamy and beautiful and I love shooting this lens wide open!
Take a look at my latest post with a 100% crop example from it.
I am an amateur with a D700 and thinking of getting the 70-200mm VR II together with the TC-20E III for the reach. Would this be a good choice ?
Steve, no, do NOT buy a 2x teleconverter for the 70-200mm – you will be disappointed. The 70-200mm VR works very well with a 1.4x TC and sometimes with 1.7x, but you will struggle with soft images if you attach a 2x TC on it.
If you need the reach, get the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S + 1.4x TC instead!
I’ve had the 70-200 VRII and the new TC-20E III for a little over a week. Shooting with a D700, this amazing combination vastly exceeded my expectations. AF is a little slower in low light (as would be expected) but I see very little, if any, loss in sharpness.
You’ve got a very nice website here. Thanks.
Ron, thank you so much for your feedback! Wow, TC-20E with a Nikon 70-200mm VR II and you have sharp images? That is really surprising, since 2x TCs worked horribly with this lens in the past.
Could you please provide a sample? I would really love to see how it performs with the 2x TC. I think it would be also nice to post your image sample to the above review! :)
Thank you!
Nasim,
You may be thinking of the TC-20EII which was a different beast altogether. Evidently people are crowing about Nikon using Aspherical lens elements on their TC-20EIII which eliminates a lot of the “softness” that the TC-20EII had. I would say, pick up the TC-20EIII if you can and test it on your 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. I think you’ll be greatly surprised. From some of the testshots of other photographers and their exclamations of awe, I’m certain that this is the combo for me to get when I can afford the TC-20EIII.
I’m probably stretching the limits of my poor 70-200mm f/2.8 with adding a TC-20EIII to do wildlife. But at least it’ll function quite more than adequately, at least until I can afford to get the 600mm f/4.
Don’t knock it ’til you try it. The TC-20E III is significantly better than the TC-20E II, and on the 70-200mm VR II the performance is simply astonishing. At f5.6 images are a bit soft but they still pop, and by f8 they look really, really good.
I will add that my experience is on FX (D700).
He shot with the Nikon D700 as well.
John, I now take my words back! You are right, the TC-20E III yields superb results with this lens. Ron Wales (above) sent me some image samples and I added them to the lens review for everyone to see.
Wow, this is totally unexpected and I am definitely loving the 70-200mm VR II even more now :)
I just stumbled across your website will looking at information on the 70-200 – there is a lot of great information here and I thank you for sharing.
I have a D90 and am wanting to take photos of my daughter’s gymnastics competitions – the lighting is usually poor, and typically you cannot get very close to most of the events, so I have been looking at zooms in the 50 to 200+ range. I am not sure that I am ready to commit the $2000+ for the Nikon 70-200 so I was wondering if you had any suggestions of other lenses that would perform well for fast action, indoor sports that I should consider?
Thanks.
PS: I like your wordpress theme, is it publicly available, or your own private theme?
Troy, unfortunately, you cannot get a good low-light zoom lens for cheap. What about prime lenses? The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is a great lens and is very capable for low-light photography. It is not as fast as the Nikon 70-200mm when it comes to focusing, but it is not bad either. The only issue is the reach…
If you need to get closer, need to be able to zoom in and out and can use a tripod/monopod, then you should also look into the Nikon 80-200mm lens. Sharpness-wise, it is as good as the 70-200mm, but the biggest disadvantage is that it has no vibration reduction (VR).
Hi Mansurov,
I like photography very much but I am not a professional photographer. I am having an Olympus E510 camera and kit lense. Now I am thinking of buying a Nikon or Canon camera. For this I was searching the internet and came accross yout site. For the last two weeks I dedicated my off time to go through your site looking at the camera and lense reviews. I also got a good idea of bokhe. Also I downloaded the sample photos to check their exif data. Going through the site was like attending a photography course, so thank you for all the hard work done to teach people like me.
I usually use my camera to shoot family events and some wild life. My Olympus will hunt for long time before focusing in the indoors. So I am planning to buy eitherD300s or D700 with 50-f/1.4 G AF-s or 85-f1.4G AF-S. For zoom I am thinking of 80-200 f/2.8 insted of 70-200 f/2.8VRII because of cost factor. Can you please give the pros and cons of this 80-200 lense. Also if we are shooting events at say 2 to 3 meter away from subject with people in background at 2 to 3 feet behind, is it possible to get shallow and deeper depth of view with the above prime lenses and D300s body . In many of your sample photo for these lenses you have used D700. Out of the two prime lenses which is more suited for my activity.
Do you have any suggestion for the canon brand for above situation- because D700 and EOS 5D markII are having the same price here.
Regards
Krishna.
Oh, the WordPress theme is publicly available and it is called “Lightword”, but I heavily modified it…
I am looking at getting the 70-200VR II and while searching for reviews got here. I found this very useful and simple and hence asking my question here. If I use a 70-200mm VR II lens at 200mm on my D300 will the cropping factor make the image look like it was taken with 300mm ? Essentially will it be same as taking the shot using the 300mm F/2.8 DX lens (Not VR II) in terms of zoom?
Arun, thank you for visiting us! As far as your question, due to the new optical redesign of the lens, it behaves like a 135mm lens on the long end at 200mm, rather than a true 200mm like the previous version. So, on a 1.5x cropped sensor of the Nikon D300, you would get an equivalent field of view of a 200mm lens, not 300mm. So, no, it will not be like shooting with a true 300mm DX lens. The great thing about the new Nikon 70-200mm VR II, is that it can work great with teleconverters, so you could easily attach a 1.4x/1.7x or even 2.0x TC and get great results.
Hope this helps.
Thanks. I also read your response to Dan Reinke that the focal length issue is only at short distances. I primarily shoot birds and mammals (wildlife). I am trying to get to a fast lens and get to at least 350 to 400mm without having to spend for the 300mm f2.8 at this point! Low light and VR would both be important to me. I might indeed go for this if I can get close to 200mm around the 50feet distance and I can use a 1.7 or a 2x tele with reasonable sharpness. Thanks again for the inputs.
I read in one of the reviews for the 2.0 III TC that there were reported Image Quality issues with DX camera vs a FX camera when paired with a 70-200mm f2.8 VRII lens. Just curious if you had done any specific tests with the D300 or equivalent with this lens and TC combination. Thanks.
Arun, no, unfortunately I have not done any tests with the 2x TC on a DX body. I’m assuming that it will work the same way as with an FX body, but I might be wrong…
Thanks anyway for responding. I will let you know if I come across any such information. I am thinking of going ahead with the lens and TC anyway in which case I might be able to post some results in a couple of months!
I shoot sports, Basketball, Hockey,Baseball and Football. I’m thinking of purchasing the new 70-200 VRII to replace my 80-200 D lense.
My concern would be a subject coming at me and have the lense default to a
lesser zoom in the middle of the shot or just before. I have the D3 and the D700
for my work.
Could you share your thoughts on this. Would the VRII still be a good choice?
I need to shoot with the lense @ 2.8 to freeze action.. NO flash.
Thank you. Dan.
Dan, could you please explain what you mean by “subject coming at me and have the lens default to a lesser zoom in the middle of the shot or just before”? Are you asking if the lens would have less reach? If yes, then the answer is yes, the lens would have a smaller field of view compared to the older 70-200mm VR II, so at 200mm the lens is actually more like a 135mm lens. What I would do, is try using your 80-200mm at 135mm and see if the focal length is enough for you. If it’s not, then I would look at the older 70-200mm VR instead of VR II. Since you need the fastest shutter speed possible, it wouldn’t make sense to add a teleconverter and lose a stop of light. VR in this case wouldn’t matter, because you are not dealing with slow shutter speeds, but rather with fast action.
Mr. Mansurov, thanks for responding.
After reading many reviews it is my understanding that the shorter
focal length only comes into play when your subject is at 15ft away or less. So, if I have a subject running directly at me and He/She crosses that 15ft limit, will the lense default to the shorter focal length? or is this lense always at the 135mm focal length when it is zoomed out to it’s max no matter what the distance is of your subject. If so, than I wonder why Nikon would market this lense as a 70-200mm lense. I was hoping to upgrade my old “D” version to get a newer, faster focusing, and the NC coating with VR. without giving up the range.
Thanks for all your help and input on this matter.
Dan.
Dan, yes, the effect is most pronounced with the subjects at close range. However, given that you are in sports photography, don’t your subjects tend to be at a closer distance rather than far away? If your subjects are beyond 15 feet, you should be looking at longer focal lengths of 300mm and above to isolate subjects from the backgrond.
I will be performing some more tests with the 70-200mm to determine how the focal length changes as the subject distance increases and decreases and will be posting some results of my findings soon.
Mr.Mansurov, I will be looking forward to your tests on how the focal lenghts change as subject distances change.
I do have the 300mm 2.8f VR I for my outdoor sports and I LOVE that lense.
Thanks again…. Dan
Dan, I did some quick tests today with the lens and I updated the above review for the field of view issue (please read #11 in this article).
Basically, at the closest focus distance of 4.6 feet, the lens is like a 135mm lens. As you move about 10 feet away from the subject, the focal length changes to approximately 165mm-170mm. When you focus the lens near infinity, the focal length is very close to actual 200mm.
Hope this helps!
Mr. Mansurov.
I got here from Nikon Rumors. Thanks for the great review.
I’m considering the 70-200 VRII for landscape and close up work. I’ll be using a Canon 500D Close-up Lens for flowers. Could you speculate how the close focusing behavior of the lens may change or impair using the 500D?
Thanks.
EM,
The new Nikon 70-200mm VR II has a closer focusing distance than the older 70-200mm VR, so the close focus distance with the 500D will have even a smaller ratio that is very close to 1:1, but not quite the same. You will probably land at a ratio between 1:1.3 to 1:1.5. I do not have a 500D close-up lens to do some real testing, but you can safely assume that the combo will be great for macro as well!
I have a D80 18-135, 50mm 1.8 and a 70-300 SB600 flash. My daughter plays soccer and when she is outside the 70-300 works great, but when she plays indoors, there is a big lighting problem. I have been looking at the 70-200 for when she plays indoors and another lens for portiate work. I am a amature and have been also looking to purchase a camera like the D300 in the next 1-2 years. I do portiat photography on the side and have been asked recently to do two weddings. I’ll not charge much – doing to help out the families but will make a few $ to support my hobbie. I just found your site and think your comments are wonderful and appreciate all the threads. Please provide your comments as to what you suggest.
Thanks
Todd, thanks for stopping by!
The 70-200mm is definitely a superb lens for sports and you will absolutely love the results, especially the creamy bokeh it produces (background blur). One thing that is your limiting factor, however, is the D80 that you have. I used to shoot with the D80 and it is a great camera when there is plenty of light. But the D80 is not good in low-light environments and shooting at higher ISO than 400 produces very noisy images.
If you want the best results in low-light environments, I would recommend a full-frame camera such as the Nikon D700 and a fast aperture lens like your Nikon 50mm f/1.8. With a full-frame camera, you can easily shoot at ISO 1600 and even 3200 without worrying much about the noise. The difference is huge – if your current limit is ISO 400 on your D80, there is a three full stop difference between ISO 400 and ISO 3200.
So, the best setup for low-light environments would be:
1) Nikon D700
2) Nikon 70-200mm VR II or a fast aperture lens (f/1.4+)
Hope this helps.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you that Nikon is currently giving great rebates on DSLR+lens combos. There is a $400 instant rebate if you buy the Nikon D700 and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II together.
Here is the link to the D700+70-200mm combo.
Excelent – the link is very tempting. I can’t swing the D700. Would there be any advantage to getting a D90 and the 70-200, or would I be better off just getting the lens and upgrading the body to a D300 or what ever replaces it at a later date?
I’ve been looking at the other subjects on your site as well and find it very interesting. ?I play around with different settings on program, shutter, apt…. but many times find myseld using automatic when I only have one shot. I want to be more positive when shooting. Any suggestions on reference material I could read or view would be appreciated. I’m sure the best is to simply practice practice practice…
Thanks
TB, considering the current rebate, I would definitely go for the D90 + 70-200mm lens, if you can afford it.
Looks like the deal for a Nikon D90 body is even better and Nikon is giving away $450 for this combo:
Nikon D90 + Nikon 70-200mm VR II
The Nikon D90 will be much better than your D80 and you can use it at higher ISOs (800 and 1600) and still get superb results. As far as I know, Nikon D300 will not be replaced this year, since we already had a D300s upgrade, so you will have to wait until next year for the D400…
As far as camera settings, I would highly recommend reading the settings part of my “how to photograph birds” article, since many of the techniques are very similar for sports photography. You need to freeze action and separate subjects from the background, which is the same thing in bird photography.
Try setting your camera to Aperture Priority mode, turn “Auto ISO” on and see how you like the results :)
I’ve almost got the funds to purchase the 70-200 (sorry I missed out on the earlier offer but I am on a very tight budget) Would you recommend me to sell my 70-300 when I purchase the 70-200? I tried selling the D80, but not much of a market since the D90 and others came out – The option is to get a new camera now or a lens – I think I’ll wait till next year for a new camera and feel the purchase of the lens is a better use of my funds. Your thoughts? Oh, I have my first wedding coming up which will be taken outdoors around 7 pm which the light will be ok for about 1 – 1.5 hours, but also thought about getting a SB600 to go along with my SB800. I have a friend with a light kit I could use, but electricity is some what of an issue at the location. Thought the flashes might help.
Thanks very much for helping out!
One additional item – I’ve been doing portriats and family gatherings. Sometimes I do pictures for others who can’t afford much just to be nice. I don’t charge very much when I do chnage – thus the reason I don’t have all the funds for more stuff. I’m also cutting two yards. Enough of that – I want to do more portiates sr, family pics… What would you think if I opted to get the 80-200 and the upgrade camera to a D90 or what replaces it? I’m just trying to make the right choice and get the more bang for my money. If it’s the 70-200, thats ok – this is a hobbie and I enjoy making people happy. Thanks
I’ve done much better with using the apeture setting and I’ve been doing some portiates and ok – stepped out and did a couple of wedding (very low preasure and not a lot of money) however, I now have enough to purchase a D7000 and enough left over to purchase a new lens. I am in process of trying to sell my D80.
Thought is to purchase with the 18-105 for a walk around lens.
Would you advise purchasing the new 70-200 vrII or finding a used 70-200 vrI? Big difference in price.
Oh – the other lens I’ve been looking at are the 24070 2.8 and 24-85 2.8-4
Your thoughts?
Thanks very much.
Hello Nassim… you got fantastic website. And your comments and help to others really much appreciated. I’m planning to upgrade my D80+18-200mm ( first SLR and lens ) although it’s been so wonderful in the last almost 4 years. But there’s nagging feeling that there’s something missing in my pictures. So now after finding out what I want … 70-200 VR II is the answer and D90 for now since the 70-200mm is already way out of my budget. Thank you so much again for your time.
Artesia, you are most welcome!
Make sure to use the current Nikon D90 + 70-200mm VR II rebate to get $450 off (the deal ends on March 28, 2010).
You will absolutely love this combo!!!
Hi Nasim, you’ve got a great website. the review is very informative without being complicated but I’m surprised you did not like the D80. Agreed it is not as good as the recent machines on the noise front but its not that bad. BTW, great article on photographing birds. tc
Tirthankar, thank you for stopping by and dropping a comment :)
I never said that I do not like the D80 – I only said that D80 is not very good for low-light photography compared to the modern Nikon DSLRs. Otherwise, it is a great camera!
mr. nasim
What can you advice me between of these two 24-70mm or 70-200mm vr2, i use in weeding, portrait, and shoot building structure,,,,or it is possible to buy these two lenses..and the 70-200mm can do landscape like 24-70 if i choose only 70-200mm.
thanks
Bernie,
If you want to shoot landscapes and portraits, then you would have to buy both the Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm. While both can photograph landscapes, the 70-200mm is too long to fit much into the frame. I would start out with the 24-70mm and then get the 70-200mm.
While on the subject. I have purchased the 70-200m from the link you gave me. So THANK YOU. The rebates is awesome :-)
I still own my 10-22mm lens. I take mainly landscape and portrait. What would you suggest the third lens I should get? Perhaps cheaper than 24-70mm :-P I’m thinking the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 or anything in mid range that would do great portrait and crisp landscape?
THANK YOU! :-)
Artesia, you are most welcome! :)
Your 10-22mm lens, is it a Tamron or Sigma, because the only 10-22mm I can remember is Canon…
As far as a lens for portraits, the 50mm f/1.4 is definitely excellent for portraits, but your 70-200mm is better and more versatile. Are you shooting FX or DX?
I have Sigma 10-22mm. I’m shooting DX I just bought D90 together with the 70-200mm. I also have D80 and planning on selling it.
Basically my question what lens I could get to fill the gap between two camera? Landscape and portrait is may main interest.
Thank you
Artesia, if you are happy with the 10-22mm, then there is no need to get another wide-angle lens. The 24-70mm is going to be too long on D90 for landscapes (35-105mm), although it would definitely compliment your 70-200mm nicely in the mid-range.
I wouldn’t go for the 50mm, since you already have the excellent 70-200mm for portraiture :) How about the 35mm f/1.8? It is cheap, small and very sharp for DX.
I’m sorry I meant 10-20mm Sigma.. doh!! :-P
Thanks you so much, your website is very helpful. I have another question my unit is D90 and 18-200mm VR2 (plan to selling these lens to a friend) and planning to buy 70-200mm vr2 (this my priority), These 70-200mm VR2 lens is enough for travel and walk around? or i’m needed aditional lens like 24-70mm but this lens is best for fx… What additional lens can you recommend for partnering with 70-200mm?
Thanks
Bernand, it depends on what you are taking a picture of. What kind of photography do you do?
most of the time architecture photography,,and do also wedding photography.
Bernard, if you are serious about architectural photography, you should get a tilt and shift lens like the Nikon 24mm PC-E, with an ultra-wide angle lens such as Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G
The 14-24mm will be great for wide-angle shots and will serve you well in weddings as well.
thank you,,so i go for 14-24mm and 70-200mm VR2 and D90,,soon upgrade D400 if available,,again thank you
You are most welcome!
I have D300s and going for 70-200mm VR II, it’s mainly for my daughter either
dancing indoor or outdoor. Please advise how to shoot the best for both.
Thank you
Michael, could you elaborate more on your question? Are you asking for tips on how to use this lens with the D300s?
Nasim,
Yes, please
Thank you
It’s seem I cannot send the above question and have no response
Sorry, I get so many comments that it takes time for me to respond.
It’s almost one year !
Dear Nassim,
I am still hesitating, could you please give me an advice? I am living in Gabon where there are a lot of opportunities of taking pictures of wildlife and birds. I have a Nikon D90 ad a Nikon D 700 body. I am not too happy with my zoom Nikon 70-300 VR (not sharp enough at 300 mm for my taste and I always shot at 300 mm which is not enough).
Which “couple” would be best for wildlife and sharpness: AFS-Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 G ED VRII + TC20III or AF-S 300 mm f/4D ED-IF + TC-14EII ?
Lily, I apologize for a late response. My whole family, including myself have been sick for over a week now and I have not had a chance to respond to all comments.
For wildlife and birding, go for the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 + TC-14EII instead of Nikon 70-200mm VR + TC20III. The Nikon 300mm f/4.0 will yield much sharper results – check out the comparison that I posted in this review.
Thank you for the review, it was very helpful. I going to keep looking for the next review mentioned above – 70-200 VRII 2.8 vs 200 f2.0. From the comments above its clear that the 200 f2.0 will come out on top.
Thanks for the review – well done!
John, thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment :)
Of course the Nikon 200mm f/2 will come out on top, it is a five thousand dollars lens and it has a shallower depth of field :) I bet sharpness-wise the Nikon 200mm f/2 will be a little sharper at f/2.8, but bokeh-wise, the 200mm will definitely stand out, especially at f/2.0.
Hello Nasim,
Sorry to push you to answer me, but the fact is that some friends of us are going to France tomorrow afternoon and we have to let them know which lens to bring us back (here in Gabon we can’t find anything). So this is my last chance to get your advice…
Thanks
Lily, two more things that I should mention – Nikon 300mm f/4.0 with a TC will yield a much better bokeh than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, which is great for birding. Also, autofocus with the 300mm will be more accurate than with the 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC.
Thanks a lot for the avice which comforted me in the fact that, when it comes to sharpness and images of birds, 300 mm f 4 is better. I discovered your web site by chance and found it very clear, congratulations! I hope your family is better now.
Lily
Lily, you are most welcome! Have a great day!
Dear Nasim,
Congratulations for the pertinence of your analysis : very interesting! Looking for a lens that I could use with a D300s (for wildlife and birding). Since the 300 and 400f/2.8 are quite heavy (and expensive!!) I was hesitating between 70-200 VRII+TC 20III and 300f/4+TC1.4II. It seems that the last combination would be the most efficient for the reach and sharpness, following your advice. But I must say I’ve seen very convincing shots with the the 70-200+TC20III… It’s really difficult to make a choice : I am a bit upset by the fact that the 300f/4 doesn’t have VR. Would it be a disadvantage?
Michel, Nikon 70-200mm + 2x TC will never be as good as Nikon 300mm f/4 with 1.4x TC when it comes to sharpness, even with the TC20E-III. The bokeh on the Nikon 300mm f/4 will be better as well.
Having no VR on the 300mm is certainly a disadvantage, but still better than shooting with 70-200mm VR II with 2x TC. You will also have a longer reach with the 300mm f/4, because there is no issue with its field of view – it will be full 300mm.
Hope this helps.
I have thought of getting 70-300mm but having this lens on D90 it can provide up to 300mm for a DX body. What would you recommend?
I like the 18-105mm but am hoping to get one wide angle lens and long lens for trip to Japan. I’m quite sure this expensive lens can serve me for years.
Dennis
Dennis, do you already have the 70-200mm VR II? If you need the reach and don’t want to spend the money, the Nikon 70-300mm VR is a good choice. If you want to do some birding though, the Nikon 300mm f/4 is definitely sharper.
Nope, but I am sitting on 70-200mm VRII for now. Is a tough decision. I have read many reviews that 70-300mm is not good enough for low-light. Am looking at 80-200mm as well. I don’t mind investing in good lenses. I thought it would be a better choice if come a day I will to switch to FX body.
Assalam u alikum Nasim,
Hope you and your family is all well. I am an amateur and love to experiment with different shots all the time. I have D80 but I have invested in the lenses. I have 35mm f/1.8 and have recently bought 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 VR ii. I love the creamy bokeh that i get from my 70-200 @ f/2.8 for my potrait shots. But I am still not sure what aperture to use indoor and outdoor when I do not want bokeh and want depth of field. Also for example, if the light is good and your objective is to have depth of field, how do you decide between f/5.6 or f/8?
Another thing I wanted to ask you is when I am taking a shot of a landscape where I want sharp, clear image with nothing out of focus, should I focus in the centre of the frame and at what aperture? Kindly advise.
By the way your article on 70-200 is very informative. I dont know why i never came across your website before!!!
Regards,
Mahwash
Mahwash, Va Aleykum Assalam!
In terms of aperture on your 70-200mm, I personally shoot almost all photos between f/2.8 and f/4, depending on how much depth of field I need. When you say that you want depth of field, what kind of photography do you mean? Are you taking portraits or landscapes?
If you need more depth of field, go for a larger aperture such as f/8 or f/10.
When taking pictures of landscapes, it all depends on what lens you use. If you use the Nikon 70-200mm, you might want to stand further away from the subject and use a very large aperture such as f/16 or higher. Wider lenses can capture a lot more depth of field at shorter distances though.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Hi M. Mansurov
I have a D300s and I would like to know if the new 70-200m f/2.8 VR II is a good match for my D300s.
Max, the new 70-200mm is a good match for any Nikon DSLR :) I use it on three DSLR bodies, including the Nikon D300 and it works flawlessly.
Dear Nasim,
I too am interested in a direct comparison between the 70-200 VRII+ TC 20III and the 300 f/4 +TC1.4II. I will buy one of these two set-ups but haven’t seen anyone compare the two directly. I’m really hoping that the 70-200 option is as sharp and contrasty because I really like the versatility of that combination and possibly adding a 1.4II to the mix for and f/4 280mm equivalent on the 70-200mm lens. I could even add a Canon 500D Macro adapter and have pretty much everything I need in one relatively inexpensive and compact package.
Reading Thom Hogan’s reviews and this review
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html
I get the impression that the two set-ups will be very comparible, but I just don’t know. From all accounts version III or the 2.0 converter is vastly superior to version II. It would be sweet if you could test those two set-ups.
Two more wild cards – If a TC1.4III comes out – The quality of the 300mm with that converter may change to winner. Or possibly a replacment for the 80-400mm. I’m not clear how that lens at 400MM would compete against the other two set-ups.
Thanks for your comprehensive work here!
Dax, without a doubt, the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4x TC will not only focus faster than the 70-200mm VR II + 2x TC, but it will also be sharper. I will soon get a sample TC20E III for testing and will provide some test samples, however, you can rest assured that the 300mm will perform better, guaranteed.
If you need the reach, go for the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4x TC and if you need the versatility, go for the Nikon 70-200mm + 2x TC. If your interest is birding, go for the 300mm f/4.0 :)
Or you can also wait for an updated version of the 300mm f/4.0 or 80-400mm…
Great, thanks Nasim. I’m renting the 300mm f4/0 + 1.4X TC for some birding this weekend.
Have you ever used the Canon 500D macro lens attachment on this (70-200mm or 300mm prime) or similar lenses?
Dax, the Canon 500D macro attachment works very well with the 300mm f/4.0. I have not tried it with the 70-200mm yet.
Thank you for taking the time to do this review
Thank you for your feedback!
Nasim,
Nice write up.
Have you seen dpreview.com’s resolution chart comparing the old 70-200 to this new one? According to their charts, the older model is sharper at f/2.8 throughout the zoom range (except for @ 200mm). The comparisons I’m referring to were done on a D300, but there is an option to see the resolution on a D3, and D3x. The full-frame cameras really take advantage of the new lens’ design.
If you’re interested in seeing the chart:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=73,16&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=70,70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
Do you think dpreview’s tests are correct? I haven’t seen a photographic comparison between the old and new versions…
Despite my photographic turmoil, I decided to get one of the new 70-200′s instead of a D700 body – should be here in a few days… I think I’m going to pop with anticipation.
Ryan, yes, I have. The new 70-200mm cannot be softer than the older version for sure, even on a DX body. It could be a sample variance for dpreview…
My older 70-200mm was soft at f/2.8 – I never shot it wide open. The new 70-200mm is a different beast.
I’m sure you will love your 70-200mm when it arrives!
Thanks for the reply, Nasim. My new lens arrived a couple days ago – a bit unbalanced on the D90, but amazing nonetheless. My other zoom lens is a Nikon 18-200… I can’t believe what I’ve been missing out on. I’m going to send a long Thank You letter to the engineers at Nikon.
Take care.
Ryan, I’m glad you are enjoying the lens :) The 70-200mm VR II is spectacular.
I wonder about the new 70-200 not being very close to 200mm at 10 feet. I am having trouble thinking of when I would shoot 200mm at someone only 10 feet away though. I’m also lusting after a D700 (though I am holding off to see what they put out later this year).
In real world useage, have you run into this less than 200mm quirk ?
oops, guess if i had read the WHOLE article I would have seen your response, apologies for the question. ;- )
No problem! I have been using my 70-200mm even for birding and I do not have any problems with the close focus issue. Check out my Nikon 70-200mm VR II for Birding article for more info.
Wow, so much here thanks. Your great replies are so helpful. Here’s my situation and questions.
I have D300 with kit lens 18-200VR and 17-35 2.8 lens.
I wanted to invest in glass for now while I wait for either D800 or modified new D700. I will for sure go full frame from D300, but it will be a while.
What I want to end up with is the new camera and these three:
14-24 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8 VRII or possible VR
Which lens to get first right now? I have the VR up there which would allow me to get two of the above used for a touch more than the VRII.
I’m an amateur that shoot home, portraits, but most fun landscapes and nature in Hawaii. Please! anybody??
Thanks inadvance
BTW, forgot to mention, I’m really NOT happy with the kit 18-200mm VR lens, due to it’s slowness and sharpness. Previously I had 80-200 2.8 and those pictures from same area in hawaii the year before killed the kit lens. That’s why I want to get back into that eventually. I sold it only because I wanted the VR one day, and now VRII option.
Sorry for the extra reply, last thought. As you see I already have the 17-35 2.8 pro lens, which is great. But I think I’ll be selling it eventually after I get the other three listed above. But it could a a factor in the recommendations from you. Thanks!
Steve, no problem!
Bear in mind that the 14-24mm f/2.8G does not accept regular filters, which might be a problem for landscape photography. Your 17-35mm is much better in that regard…
If you do not use filters, then the 14-24mm is definitely worth considering – it is much sharper than the 17-35mm, especially in the corners.
Steve, I feel you, I also hated my 18-200mm, which I sold after a short while. The 70-200mm VR II is so good that you will quickly forget your old 80-200mm :)
Steve, I would go for the Nikon 70-200mm VR II lens first – it is a spectacular portrait lens. If you shoot more landscapes than portraits, then the 14-24mm is also superb…
I love my 70-200 VR II, as I use it mostly for indoor sports with my little children. We had a picture collage at the end of the season and let’s just say my pictures stole the show! I’m glad to see you looked at this lens for all the features and benefits and didn’t get hung up on the breathing “issue”. As I’m sure it may be inconvenient for some, it has given me much more versatility, especially on my D90! I loved it so much I had to run out and buy a 24-70 VR! I just wish I had more time to shoot with them both! Anybody hiring novice photographers???
Thank you for your feedback Adam, and congratulations with your purchase! Both the 70-200mm and the 24-70mm are superb lenses – I also own both.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Hi, I have a D300s with a 70-200mm Nikkor VR II lens and I would like to know if someone has experience with some Circular Polarizer filter. B+W, slim or standard, Kaesemann or not? Nikon Circular Polarizer II, Hoya, etc? I’m looking for information if B+W standard (no slim version) could cause some vigneting at 70mm.
Thanks
Max, I use the B+W Kaesemann circular polarizer with my 70-200mm VR II and it works perfectly. I bought the Kaesemann version because I travel a lot, but if you live in a dry area, a regular non-Kaesemann version should work great.
Do not buy the slim version of the filter, because you will not be able to use the lens cap. Don’t worry about vignetting – it only typically happens on short focal lengths below 35mm.
Hi Nasim, I go to a camera store to take and compare few pictures between slim and none slim version with my 18-70 Lens before finalize my choice. I could tell you that the difference is not enough to go with the slim for the same reason of your. The best setup in my test was to remove my Nikon NC (that I forget to tell you I’m using one) before using the B+W when I use short focal.
Thanks for your help
Max, yeah, I would not recommend to stack up filters – you will be not only degrading image quality, but also introducing too much flare and vignetting in the images :)
You are most welcome!
Nasim, Thank you for this review, and the contributor comments regarding the 70-200mm VRII used in conjunction with the TC-20III.
Here is an odd, and somewhat confusing (long) question. I presently have a D3, 70-200mm VRII and TC 1.4EII, but would like more reach for motorsports. I also have a 300mm f/4 which I use with a TC1.4E II, but that combination lacks VR, is not fast enough, and has too much contrast – loosing detail in shadows on brightly-lit days.
I am looking for sharpness, IQ, focus speed, and the VR is also very important as I am panning on fast-moving objects, handheld. The 70-200 VRII has all of these, but is too short.
I am contemplating an upgrade to the 300mm f/2.8 VRII used with my TC 1.4EII, but for around the same cost I could upgrade to a D3x and purchase a TC-20III to use with my existing 70-200mm VRII.
Now to the question: With the higher resolution of the D3x, isn’t cropping the final image back to 4256×2832 (D3 resolution) the equivalent of adding 100mm of lens power? If it is, which would be the better 1st step for my objective – upgrade to a D3x (for use with the 70-200 + TC-20), or upgrade to the 300mm f/2.8?
Any help would be appreciated.
Kevin,
Unfortunately, no, cropping an image is not the same thing as adding 100mm of lens focal length. Your focal length does not change, only the field of view does when you crop an image. When it comes to focal lengths, there are other factors to add to the equation, such as depth of field, bokeh, etc.
Why do you want to upgrade to D3x for motorsport photography? Bear in mind that while you will be gaining resolution in your images, you will lose in good high ISO performance, which I believe is important for what you do.
I would go for the 300mm f/2.8G VR II instead of getting D3x + 70-200mm + TC-20E III. The 300mm f/2.8G will give you much more sharpness, clarity and contrast than the 70-200mm with a TC. Trust me on that :)
Nasim,
When I get the 70-200, would it be wise to keep or sell the 70-300 and possibly get the 1.7 multiplier.
I have a wedding to shoot in a couple of weeks and the coulple just told me it was changed to 9:00 pm outside. HELP – I have a D80, an SB800 1.8 50mm, 70-300 and the kit lens 18-135. I have a friend with a light kit, but electric is not real easy to get to. Would you suggest getting a sb600 to help with filling in the light, renting a 70-200 or a 85 1.5 or maybe a 24-85 2.8?? I would get the 70-200 now, but still a little short on funds. Any suggestions would be great. PS – this is my first wedding and if this a norm for weddings, I’ll stick with doing family and senior pics – so much less stress!
TB, if you get the 70-200, I would sell the 70-300 and get the 1.7x TC for reach instead. The only thing to consider is weight, the Nikon 70-300mm is much lighter than the 70-200mm.
As far as your wedding is concerned, you will not be able to bounce light outside and 9 PM means it will be VERY dark outside (after sunset). Unfortunately, you do not have many options, except maybe using video light or some other external light, in addition to your camera flash. Worst case scenario, use flash on your camera and use a bounce card or some other light diffuser to make the light look a little softer.
I hope the bride and groom are not expecting you to work the magic and create beautiful photos of them. To light the night with flash, you would need a lot of light and lots of professional gear. Even then, the sky and other background elements will turn out very dark. If they just need you to document the wedding, you can certainly do it with a single flash on your camera, but if they need good-looking pictures with them posing, tell them that you need to shoot earlier. No lens or camera will add that much light into the night scene…
Hope this helps.
Hi Nasim,
Did you ever definitively determine that the 300 AF-S F/4 with the 1.4 TCII performs better than the 70-200 2.8 mKII with the 2.0 tcIII?
I am interested in IQ and Focus Speed primarily.
Secondly have you ever used the 300 f/4 with the 1.7 tc? I’m reading in some places that the AF will work in good light and the IQ is still very good. 510mm for $1700 would be awesome.
Thanks
Dax, I will have the teleconverter next Thursday and I will thoroughly test both Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II and Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S with the TC-20E III. I am sure that the Nikon 300mm + 1.4x is going to be sharper, but I want to provide image samples as facts.
Yes, I have used the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 with the 1.7x TC and I was never happy with the results. AF works in afternoon light, but as soon as you put it against dimmer light and tough subjects like birds, the focus starts to hunt and the lens gets super slow…I truly wish it worked well with the 1.7x TC, but it doesn’t.
Awesome. Assuming Nikkon doesn’t throw a monkey wrench into the situation by introducing something like a new 150-450mm 5.6 max (86mm front element?) zoom lens by Photokina, I’m going to buy one of those two set-ups in the next couple of months.
I rented the 300mm f/4 with the 1.4 tc a month or two ago and looking back at my images I found a great many in the 3m – 10m distance. Based on Thom Hogan’s review of the 70-200 mkII it looks like the focus breathing on that lens would only give me 328-372mm vs. the full 420 with the 300mm and 1.4 tc. :(
I used the rental mostly for birding that weekend and found that I wanted every last mm. I really could have used more (don’t we always) even with the 1.5 crop on my D90.
Anyhow. Your test will really help me decide. Thanks for your efforts!
Dax, you are most welcome! Yes, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II + 2x TC is not going to be as effective as 300mm + 1.4x for close subjects, due to lens breathing at short focal lengths.
assalam Dear Nasim,
actually im not a bird photographer, but i like it very much and used to do it some free times. so i cant able to afford AFS 300 F/4 for that particular purpose. so im going to buy the new nikon 70-200 VR II and i cant use it for multi purpose.
so my question is this…
for bird purpose, which teleconverter is the best combination with 70-200??? with more sharp, contrast and bokeh….
kindly update …
Afsel, Va Aleykum Assalam!
If you are planning to buy the 70-200mm VR II, then all three teleconverters work great with it. I have not fully tested the Nikon TC-20E III yet, but I will later this week. So far, I’m impressed with both 1.4x TC and 1.7x TC performance.
Dear Nasim,
I own the d3oos and the 70-200 vrii. I have read a lot of reviews on how the tc-20e III works better on FX than on DX formats. Have you tried the tc-20e III with your d300 and 70-200vrii?
Dear Nasim, one more doubt about the following comment from you
“Are you asking if the lens would have less reach? If yes, then the answer is yes, the lens would have a smaller field of view compared to the older 70-200mm VR II, so at 200mm the lens is actually more like a 135mm lens. What I would do, is try using your 80-200mm at 135mm and see if the focal length is enough for you. If it’s not, then I would look at the older 70-200mm VR instead of VR II.”
actually i dont understand about this. are you saying that this lens having only 70-135 focal length or something else?? sorry to disturb, please update about this….
Afsel, when focusing the Nikon 70-200mm VR II at close distances, the actual focal length drops due to the lens design and internal focus “breathing”. This is normal behavior and a few of Nikon lenses are designed that way. If focused at longer distances (for example when photographing birds), this problem goes away. Basically, it only happens when you focus at close subjects.
Some people who are used to the focal length of the older 70-200mm complained because they lost some of the reach, but as I have pointed out in my article, it is not a problem for most situations.
Dear Nasim, thanks a lot for comments. its really very helpful for us…..
Dear Nasim,
I am presently shooting a D300 and have the 70-200mm VR. I purchased this lens shortly before the VR II came out. Now the big questions is do I sell the VR (which is like new) and purchase the VR II??
I mainly use this lens for wildlife work. Like you told someone, earlier, you can purchase a new D700 for the cost of the new VR II.
I really enjoy your website, real good information, for an old F2A shooter.
Robert
Robert, don’t bother selling your 70-200mm VR, especially if you are shooting wildlife.
Hi Nasim,
I have been planning to buy the 70-200 VRII, possibly mated with a 1.7 teleconverter. I am primarily interested in taking pictures of high school soccer games, but also take a variety of other types of photos, including portraits. However, I became hesitant about the 70-200 when I read your assessment of the superiority of the 300mm f4, possibly mated with a 1.4 teleconverter. For soccer, the advantages in the 70-200 seem to be its speed (the 2.8 is valuable in late afternoons and cloudy days) and the flexibility of its range–about a quarter of my soccer photos are taken at 200mm or less. And for other than soccer, the 70-2oo has the VRII, which makes it much better for indoor photos, and reach is less important and flexibility in range remains valuable. These advantages have to be weighed against the greater sharpness and faster focusing of the 300mm f4. How much sharper and faster is the 300mm lens?
I am wondering if you could assess the tradeoff between the relative advantages of the two lenses, given the purposes I have outlined. I know that you have addressed parts of this assessment in your earlier comments (which was helpful, albeit troubling). I would appreciate your assessment of my specific situation. Thank you,
— Charlie
Charlie, if you need to work with various focal lengths and need the ability to zoom in and out, I would certainly go with the 70-200mm + 1.7 TC. If you shot birds, on the other hand, I would certainly recommend the 300mm over 70-200mm.
Hi Nasim,
Did you ever run your tests on the 70-200 VRII with the TC-20eIII vs the 300 F/4 with the tc-14eII? I recently rented those lenses and found the 70-200 VRII to me superior to the 300 f/4 (at least my samples). The colors, contrast and sharpness were all better on the 70-200. The question is….how will they each perform with the respective teleconverters.
Thanks,
Chris
Chris, yes, I did…quite extensively in fact. The 70-200mm is a whole different lens than the 300 f/4, but works well with the TC-20E III. On the other hand, the 300mm f/4 does not work as good with anything but the TC-14E II. When it comes to shooting birds, although the 70-200mm sounds like a good lens with the TC-2oE III, you will certainly find yourself increasing aperture to a higher number to get a similar amount of sharpness as the 300mm f/4.
I will post some detailed sharpness tests as soon as I get back…
Was this comparison ever done? If so, can you provide a reference? I’ll like to see something at 10-15 foot (small birds) at 300-400-420mm! And/or larger wildlife at 50′.
Thanks
charlie
Thanks for the very nice review which helped me make up my mind to get one of the 70-200 vrii. It will arrive today and I am so excited and can’t wait…
Dalin, you are most welcome! I’m sure you will love the 70-200mm!
WOW, amazing review, I ended buying the 70-200 VRII and the tc 1.7, and I am waiting my 2x III because your review, the quality is so good, that make sense, for me at least, to get the 2.0 III and walk around with a cheap but very good 140-400 for no more than 3000…
Excellent review Nasim Mansurov
Juan, you are most welcome! I’m sure you will love the 70-200mm – it is a beautiful lens with and without the TCs.
بسیار متشکرم
بررسی خوبی بود
موفق باشید
You are most welcome! :)
سال نو مبارک آقا نسیم
انشاالله که سال پر خیر و برکتی داشته باشید
Hi!
I was wondering, how well do you think the 70-200mm are for portrait work?
Thing is, i am very hooked on the new 85mm and 24mm G lenses, as my 2 only lenses, but i often find myself in need of some reach too and 70-200mm is a fine range.
What are your recommendations and experience on these 2 setups?..
24mm f/1.4G for portraits, landscapes and lowlight.
85mm f/1.4G for portraits, some landscapes and lowlight.
or
16-35mm f/4 VR for landscapes mostly and general photography.
50mm f/1.4G for portraits and lowlight.
70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VRII for portraits, landscapes and animals.
I love primes, but since they cost alot, i am trying to narrow it down. :)
My setup is currently D3+50mm f/1.4G and 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR.
Thanks in advance.
Ole, the Nikon 70-200mm is my second most favorite lens for portraits, after the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. It is a phenomenal lens that will deliver crisp, beautiful portraits with exceptionally good-looking bokeh.
In terms of lens choices between prime vs zoom, I would personally go with the 16-35mm, 50mm and 70-200mm lenses. If your subjects are strictly portraits, then the primes would be a better choice. If you mix portraiture with other work, then zooms certainly have an advantage.
Thank you, Nasim :)
I think i will go for 16-35mm, keep my 50mm, get the new 85mm and later on the 70-200mm VRII. That will cover most of my work in 4 lenses. :)
Thanks again and Merry Christmas :)
You are most welcome Ole!
Hello Ole,
What are your thoughts on the 16-35mm?
I’m torn between portraits and events. I’ve decided to wait to start up shooting events until the fall of 2011, so I’m holding off on the 70-200mm VRII and it’s versatility for said festivals/events.
I have a 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4G (most likely getting the 85mm f/1.4G tomorrow) but, need to fill the gap between 16-35mm range @ f2.8 or f/4.
Choice A.) 17-35mm f/2.8
or
Choice B.) 16-35mm f/4
I have read a bunch of Nasim’s points in his write up between the two lenses.
Thanks,
DJ
Hi Nasim,
I love my D700 with 24-70mm Nikkor lens, but I am itching to purchase the 70-200mm vr II to add to my arsenal of tools when I shoot in and outdoor candid portraits. Should I keep the 24-70mm or bag it and go entirely with the 70-200mm vr II??? Also, I do like to carry a light bag so I figured when I needed a bit more reach I would lug the 70-200mm.
Thanks much for your insight!
Dee Jay, I would never part with my 24-70mm ;-) I don’t think you should sell it to get the 70-200mm – better save and get the 70-200mm later.
You’re right, I will keep the 24-70mm but, I’m stuck between getting an 85mm f/1.4G (I have a 50mm f/1.4G as well as the 24-70mm f/2.8) or the 70-200mm. I would like some reach, but not at the cost of clarity. Portrait work is the goal and I’m searching for the best tools for the study.
Thank you again,
-DJ
DJ, if you want the best quality portraits, get the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G, although it is almost impossible to find one now…
Hi Nasim,
I live in Asia so I ordered the 85mm f/1.4G yesterday. It costs $2,150 and you don’t get to test body or lens before purchase, just the way it is, unless items are available in the stores.
However, I buckled and ended up purchasing, at the sight of an 70-200mm f/2.8. It’s the first time there has been one on display in any chain of camera stores in the area. My jaw dropped when I saw it behind the glass, so I grabbed a clerk knowing my shooting plans most likely would be changing again. It can make long-term scheduling very impractical, but you learn a level of patience that is as reflective and spectacular as the pictures you end up grabbing.
Anyway, the 70-200mm cost $2,932 and it is common to pay between $300-500 dollars more for bodies and lens. I purchased it after shooting it inside a shopping mall for three hours. I wasn’t pleased much with the performance indoors. However, I was blown away at my late afternoon shoot – speechless of the results that I spent all day today editing. I am happy with the purchase.
I’m scrapping the 17-35mm and awaiting the arrival of the 85mm f1.4 G I think this is what is most appropriate to support my goals. Portraiture and events can be covered with everything in my bag.
THANKS A BUNCH for all or your time dedicated to the insights of photography. It’s a special gift to deliver these findings in such an open forum. I respect that and appreciate photography even more because of it.
-DJ
DJ, congratulations with your purchase – 70-200mm is one of my most favorite Nikon lenses.
Hi Nasim,
A slight change in plans. I have also been anxiously considering the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED vs the 16-35 f/4 VR for wedding and landscapes. Some people mention that the 17-35mm is past it’s prime and needs to be stopped down to f/11 “for sharpness across the entire frame.” Another reviewer mentioned that the 16-35 f/4 VR has “corners [that] are soft, needs to be closed to f/8 to be acceptable.” Both comments were provided by tenured professionals and can be found in reviews posted at Nikon.com.
I’ve decided on picking up an 85mm f/1.4G tomorrow. I’m going to save money to purchase the 70-200mm f/2.8 for next fall. However, I am keen on utilizing the f/2.8 on the 17-35mm even if it is more expensive than the 16-35mm.
Your insight is greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
-DJ
Dee Jay, if you look at my Nikon 16-35mm review, you will see that the Nikon 17-35mm is actually softer in the corners. And yes, you would have to stop down the 17-35mm to f/8+ to get good results… but why are you looking at these lenses if you already have the 24-70mm lens? 17-35mm is OK at f/2.8 only in the center.
Hi Nasim,
Upon traveling this week I discovered “fragments” of stuff that I can only imagine is shavings lodged between the interior of the lenses in my 70-200mm lens. There is a few large flecks of stuff with a dusting of much smaller flecks in the vicinity. They are quite visible to the naked eye even without my LED flash light. I haven’t noticed anything while previewing the RAW files on Lightroom and am open to suggestions all around on handling this setback.
I won’t be back home for at least three weeks, can I take the lens to any Nikon dealer? I’ve stopped shooting with the 200 immediately for fear that there could there be additional damage to the internal components. Please advise as I do not speak the language in the region I am shooting.
Thanks!
Dee Jay, dust inside lenses is quite normal (all of my lenses have dust inside), but very large specks of dust might impact image quality. With the 70-200mm, the dust you see is actually magnified, which is why it might appear larger. There was a heated debate when the 70-200mm came out over the threads on the front of the lens, but Nikon responded saying that the front lens element is like a loupe that magnifies everything. If you believe the dust particles are too big, send your lens to Nikon and they will take a look…
Dust never appears in images and only lots of it can impact the contrast of your images.
As Salam..
i admire of nikon 70-200mm but it is too expensive for me..
i just thinking of sigma or tamron..
can u suggest me which one is better..
Thanks Nasim..
Harmanizan, unfortunately, I have not tested either the Sigma 70-200mm or the Tamron, so I cannot give you any recommendations.
Hi, If you could please help me with the lens i should have in my bag. I do shoot Nikon but just want to get the right lenes. Regardless of price, for portrait, landscape, wildlife, journalism. What would you put together. I want to purchase the best the first time around. I am anxious to see what you recomend. Thank you
Mike, what lenses do you shoot with? There is no single lens that can do portraits, landscape, wildlife and journalism well. The Nikon 70-200mm is superb for portraits and wildlife (large wildlife), but is not wide enough for landscapes. If you shoot full-frame, I would recommend to get the Nikon 24-70mm or the Nikon 14-24mm (depending on how wide you want to go) in addition to the Nikon 70-200mm to have a good range to work with for landscapes and portraits. If you have a DX camera, then I personally really like the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens for landscapes.
Hope this helps.
Hi Nasim,
I am a keen wildlife and bird photographer in Borneo and at the moment contemplating of purchasing a better prime lens for producing quality images.
The current humble setup i am using is a Nikon D300 + 70-300 mm VR lens for most of my wildlife photography work. I am happy with the results so far but on certain situations especially on the maximum focal length of 300mm the lens fall short on being soft and focusing can be quite tough under lowlight conditions.
The two lenses that i have in mind are the:
1) 300mm f4 AF-S
2) 70-200mm VRii with tc 1.7 ii or tc 2.0 iii
Which among this two would you recommend for wildlife and bird photography? I shoot most of the time under low light conditions and will need enough speed, reach and sharpness on my photos. I know that in order to do that its always best to get a 500mm or 600mm, but at the moment that is still out of my budget reach.
I have tried the 300mm f4 AF-S and under good lighting it produces sharp on images but the lack of VR annoys me a lot as i find it difficult to shoot sharp images hand held. I have to use my tripod/monopod to achieve that but it the focus does hunt a lot. The 70-200mm VRii i have also tried and even though i like the image quality i have never tried it with any of the tcs. I would prefer to have at least 300mm more on my d300 + the 1.5 crop factor to start with.
Please do give me your feedback.
Thank You.
Mark, I apologize for not being able to respond earlier – just saw your post after Mark Borchers posted his question below.
For wildlife and bird photography, without question, the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S is a better candidate than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G + TC-20E III. It is a very sharp lens wide open and it works great with the TC-14E II, giving you true 420mm of focal length.
Yes, lack of VR makes it a little difficult to work with the 300mm f/4 handheld, but if you keep your shutter speed high enough, it will give you much better results than any other combination of lenses under $2K. I typically set my 300mm f/4 to Auto ISO and leave the minimum shutter speed at 1/1000th of a second – you will need faster shutter speeds for bird photography anyway, since they move so fast.
Hope this helps.
I realize that the above is a somewhat subjective question, but I too am interested in the response. I have an 18-200 and a handful of shorter primes. I’m considering the 300 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8. I know that the 70-200 focal range is duplicated by the 18-200 but I’m interested in the improved IQ of the 70-200. On the other hand the reach of the 300 would create some opportunities that I don’t have today. Just looking for comments on which of the above attributes would be more important to you if you were in my shoes.
Note, I’m in great suspense to see if Nikon updates the 300 f/4 with VR in its upcoming new releases on 8/24, but for me the question would still come down to extended reach vs. IQ.
Thanks in advance!
Mark, please see my response to Mark Louis above – I would go with the Nikon 300mm f/4.0 for the reach. I doubt Nikon will release a VR version of the 300mm f/4 AF-S on 8/24…
Hi nasim,
I just wonder when u hold the 70-200 by your hand, and i shake the lens, i hear a sound like something moving inside the lens , i just wonder is that the VR unit of the lens moving or something wrong with lens, when attach on camera could not hear any sound when shake it
Lee, it is normal for VR lenses to make noise during focusing, but it is not normal if you are hearing sounds when the lens is detached from the camera body. It could be that something is loose inside the lens…
i hear the same sound when the lens is detached from the body. brand new lens, bought it 3 days ago
Why are you guys shacking your lenses? :) Seriously, it is normal to have sounds inside lenses when you shake them. Most of my lenses do that.
Great web site and costless reviews – pictures! Well still learning – but great pictures as well – like your style, colors etc.
Will put a link on my web page to you site as well since your work makes a difference…
You are talking a lot about comparison between the new and old 70-200 VR optics. Do you have a few samples showing exactly the difference? I’m using my 24-70/2.8 and 85/1.4 on my D700 body and my “old” 70-200 on my D300 – think that the combination D300/70-200 VRI looks pretty sharp to me – do you think the difference on my D300 between the old VRI and new VRII will be noticeable?
Kind regards
And thabks for your priceless work
Ole
I recently read an article where a photographer with a 70-20mm 2.8 listed his next purchase as the 80-400mm 4.5-5.6D ED. Why would he not purchase instead a Nikon TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter for his 70-200mm? Given he already has this lens, would the teleconverter not give him the same reach for less money?
Thanks
Ron
Ron, I personally would not get the 80-400mm, because its AF is slow. As for why he did not purchase the TC, I do not know – you might want to ask him about it.
Hi Nasim
The 70-200mm f/2.8 is alittle out of my price bracket at present but I was wondering whether you could advise me whether the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED would be a reasonable substitute for the 70-200mm. I am aware that it does not have VR and I was wondering if this would be a viable alternative.
As always, thanks for your most informative website !
regards
Ian
Ian, the Nikon 80-200mm is a very good and sharp lens. If budget is an issue and VR doesn’t matter, go for it!
Доброго времени суток Насим!
У меня имеется D90, Nikkor 18-105 и Nikkor 24-70. Планирую переходить на Full frame в будущем. Могли бы Вы посоветовать, в какой последовательности действовать: купить 70-200 и 14-24, а потом D800 или покупать D700 и со временем добирать объективы?
Игорь, прошу прощения за столь поздний ответ. Я бы начал со стекла :)
Hi Nassin, I bought a new 70 200 VR II and it is presenting high noise in autofocus motor (appearing to be an old door opening). The sound is more high at higher autofocus speed (70mm). What is it?
Norton, it is normal if there is a slight sound that comes out when you half-press the shutter, which is the VR mechanism. However, if you hear anything loud when the lens focuses, you will need to send it to Nikon for repair…
Greetings from Russia.
I also have 2x teleconverter and work with him I was not quite satisfied. my photo with 70-200 +2 x http://fcgazovik.ru/content/view/321/143/
It is interesting to directly compare the two versions
70-200mm f/2.8G II and 70-200mm f/2.8G ED AF-S VR
I have an old version of 70-200, and thinking to change to a new version of the lens
You write that the new lens is sharper, I would like to see proof of this.
If possible, provide a comparative shots with both lenses.
Михаил, на вашем месте я бы купил Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR или 300mm f/4 AF-S. Новый 70-200mm VR II лучше, но с 2x TC вам нужно будет фоткать на f/8.0…
Спасибо за ваши обзоры и за сайт в целом,
Мне нужен зум, брать 200-400 нет возможности, а обменять свой старый на новый 70-200 плюс новый же телеконвертор заинтересовало. Особенно после прочтения о том что эта связка довольна хороша.
300 f4 – хорош для wildlife, а снимать им в помещении не с руки.
Михаил, да, связка на самом деле хороша, но вам понадобится новый TC-20E III и нужно будет снимать на f/8, так как контрастность и четкость на f/5.6 слабовата.
Any idea when this Nikon TC 20 E III will be available. Is the short supply some thing to do with the tsunami affecting Nikon production line. I was under the impression that the factories were back to full production.
Hi Nasim,
i own a good 80-200 2.8D ED (double ring) of which i am very satisfied. By the way i am seiously thinking to upgrade to a AF-S 70-200. Will i get more quality doing this step? And, according to you, should i consider the old VRI or point straightly to the new VRII: does the price difference worth the value?
Thanks in advance!
Alessio
Alessio, the new VR II is worth the money – it will be much better than your older 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (which is a great lens).
Hey Nasim,
I’ve been a parttime photographer for years now. I have a Nikon 50mm 1.4 (great lens), and a nikon 18-200 3.5 which I use the most. I’ve been shooting a lot of sports photography, and wildlife lately and really need to upgrade. I feel this lens would be perfect, but would like to ask your opinion. Maybe you have another suggestion! Thank you for all your helpful information!
Lisa, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G would be a huge upgrade from what you have – you will see the difference right away when shooting sports and wildlife.
Hello Nasim,
I have a few questions for you. Hope you would be able to answer them for me. Thanks in advance!!
1 – Should I buy 85mm f1.4G or 70-200mm f2.8 VR II for portrait lense? I desperately need either of them soon!
2 – Would it be easy to carry the 70-200 around due to its weight?
3 – Does this lense justify D7000 capability as a competent non full frame DSLR?
Thanks again.
Regards,
@ris_@bdullah
Aris, if you need the best portrait lens you can buy, get the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G. If you need to be able to shoot from a distance without getting noticed, get the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G. But mind you, the 70-200mm is very heavy and bulky, so you might find it difficult to work with in some situations. I love both of these lenses, but have been taking the 85mm f/1.4G more with me for weddings due to weight.
And D7000 is a phenomenal camera. Just came back from Yellowstone and I am stunned by the quality of images and dynamic range it can produce.
just received the 70-200 II… incredible quality. I already own other pro nikkors, but this one is AWESOME. At 1/10″ 200mm hand held it is absolutely perfect. At 2.8, the resolution is > 90% of 5.6… as I can see. Bokeh is LOVELY! Previously I had the 80-200 2.8D, nice lens, but can’t compare with this.
Who says that a better lens does not produce better photos and only the photographer is important? I shot stupid test photos, and they are BEAUTIFUL! The only drawback is the weight… the 80-200 was much lighter. Oh well… Another problem is it’s size, that scares people! Anyway, on the D700 it is wonderful. Thank you for your advise!
You are most welcome Gianpaolo and of course you can advise other people on the blog :)
Hi Mansurovs:
I recently saw this site and glued to it. Very good site. It is great to see you would like to help others your responses.
I have a question on lens choices. Basically, I shoot portraits – family and kids (2 & 4) in particular with D700 both indoor (tungsten) and outdoor. I have 50mm 1.8 and broke 70-300mm on a trip which made me to look at lens choices.
I like both 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 vr ii. But I can only either of them not both. What will be your advice?
My understanding of these lenses from various reviews:
24-70mm: pluses – less weight, good for indoor and okay for outdoor. minuses – no VR and limited reach on outdoor
70-200mm: pluses – probably best optics, excellent reach, great for head-shots. misues: relatively heavy, at times challenging to shoot indoor due to lack of space.
Now I am not sure which one I should get first. Are they produce same iq and comparable bokeh?
What are your views? I dont have any other gear. With either of them, I can add primes to fill some gap sometime next year. But I can afford only one of the zoom for next one year or so.
Curious to see your take on it.
Thanks
Nivas
Hi Nasim… pleas allow me to say something to Nivas. It seems that we use the D700 in similar situations! I have just 4 lenses, and for interiors I use mostly 17-35 and tammy 28-75. (I have also a 105VR, beautiful but of more limited use in interiors). But now that I have the 70-200 I try to use it as much as possible… it is incredible. It is really difficult to shot a bad photo with it! Of course, it is not the best choice for crammy interiors (I am lucky enuff to have a quite large home, so I can shot from distance in many cases). If you can find a GOOD tammy (a bit difficult) why not to get a 28-75 AND a 70-200? I think that you could be really happy…
thank you for hosting! and for your advise, again.
Nivas, for portraits, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G would be the obvious choice – I would start with that lens first.
Thanks gianpaolo for interesting suggestion.
Thanks Nasim. I will start with that one. Apologies for getting your name other way around – tried to type the post quickly before kids grabbed me!
Hi Nasim:
I bought the lens couple of weeks ago. First impressions: the quality of the shots are mind blowing. I did not understand what you meant by creamy bokeh until I used it. The colours are brilliant too – both indoors and outdoors. I never managed such skin tones in Tungsten light with my other lens.
It will take at least one month or so to understand it’s performance. I was half minded before the purchase.
Also, I was not sure fully with D700 performance until I paired it with this lens – bad sharpness and poor colours and so on. Your eagle picture clarified where the problem was – with my broken 70-300mm. Now I appreciate the camera as well – delight to use them together.
Thanks once again for your suggestions and your contributions towards photography community.
One suggestion on the web site: On the right side, you have arranged the topics. When we click them it opens up related topics – first heading and part of first page, second heading and so on . It would be better if it opens only title instead of opening first page together. It will help people like me who browse websites with smartphones during daily train journeys (even at home). Scrolling will be faster that way. I have seen that you have bunched up lens reviews in one place which is useful – I have bookmarked that page.
Thanks gianpaolo!
Nivas, I am happy to hear that you are loving the 70-200mm. It is one of my favorites too, especially when shooting in low light.
As for the archive page layout, that’s how it was in the beginning and I had people ask me to make it show up with a summary, because they did not want to click on each link to see what was in it. So while it would definitely be good for mobile users, it would not be as good for laptop/pc users :(
Oh I see. Then we need to go for debate and voting! :-)
Hi Nasim!
The more I use the 70-200, the more I appreciate it… it gives a magic to the most boring pictures! and I own other professional lenses from nikon. A photo with the sun directly in the frame has no veiling, no ghosts… incredible! And the focus accuracy… without any trimming on the D700, at 200mm 2.8, when the DOF is about 10mm, it dead in the middle +/- 1 mm! Never had anything similar. And I have also the 105VR.
BUT… I must get accustomed to the weight!
Waiting for more article3s from you, I really appreciate the one on the 400mm. It is SF for me, but I like SF…
Nasim,
I desperately want this lens!!! Unfortunately, the reality is that it’s just too expensive for me right now, however… based on your experience, do you think it’s wise to consider purchasing a “restored lens”? If so, are you aware of a legitimate source from where to purchase?
I’ve learned a great deal in coming to your website and reading your articles, thank you so much for all your time and effort in sharing your expertise.
God bless, Marybeth
I’ve read many reviews on this lens but yours is the best by far. As an amateur I can say you explain all the ins and outs so it’s very easy to understand.
I do have a question for you though.
Currently I have the Nikon D300 camera , 18-200, 10-24 and 50 1.4 G lens. I’ve been lusting after the 70-200 lens since getting the D300 but at the time my budget wouldn’t allow it.
I’ve been reading your review on the D700 and now I really have a dilemma. Do I spend the money on the 70-200 lens and keep shooting with my D300 ( which I love) or go full frame ? I would sell the 18-200 which is an okay lens but very soft at the long end.
I would love to hear what you would do
Thank you and keep the review coming
Take care
Gregor
Gregor, I would say keep the D300 for now and get the Nikon 70-200mm. The D700 is a little old now and Nikon will surely announce a replacement next year…
Marhaba Nasim,
Great site. You are a very patient man to answer all these questions.
I am a new photographer who purchased a D700 and the 70-200 VRI 2.8 to take pictures of my son playing sports in a dimly lit gymnasium. The pictures are excellent. He is now playing rugby and I could use the extra reach of a teleconverter. Would the Nikon 1.4, 1.7, or 2.0 teleconverters work as well on my VRI as they did on your VRII during your tests.
Shukran katir for any response.
Thank you Nasim for your reply and I will take your advice and buy the 70-200 lens.
First, thanks a lot for a really informative and professional website, I love it.
I would appreciate your comments on the following.
Ignoring the reduced focal length of the 70-200 vr2, which combination of the following will give me the highest resolution RAW images when the lens is used wide open?
1) FX body with 70-200 + TC14
2) DX body with 70-200 vr2 only.
Kind Regards
Michael
Michael, I apologize for a late response – been super busy lately.
It is tough to answer your question, because we are dealing with FX vs DX dilemma here. DX has higher resolution than FX, but only uses the center of the frame, where the lens is sharper. FX, on the other hand, exposes the corners (which are generally less sharp than the center wide open), but delivers exceptional noise-free images. If you will be shooting on a tripod only, then I would vote for option #2. If you are shooting hand-held and need noise-free images with a slightly worse corner performance, then #1.
Hi Nasim
I wish you and our family all the best and a happy new year.
I will decide on which I will go whether Canon or Nikon depends on your kind lens recommendation on 70-200!
Canon 70-200 2.8 (or f/4) IS 2 or Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR2
Best regards and thanks in advance
Mehmet
Mehmet, that’s a bad question to ask from a guy who shoots Nikon :)
In all seriousness, the latest Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II is the sharpest 70-200mm lens out there today…
First of all I really enjoy reading your web site and think your reviews are possibly the best and most informative of all posted.
I have a Nikon D300 with a 17- 55 f2.8 and a 70 – 300 f4.5 – 5.6 vr lens. I am thinking about replacing to 70 – 300 with either a 70 – 200 f2.8 vrii with a Nikon TC 2.0 iii or a Nikon 300 F4 with a Nikon TC 1.4. I have read reviews about both and still cannot decide.
I mostly photograph landscape, waterfalls, aircraft and people.
Any help or advice will be gratefully received.
Best wishes for 2012
I appreciate your website and am respectfully seeking advice. I’m an amateur and shoot mostly landscape. I used to have a Mamiya 6 for scanning and was happy with my photos before switching to digital. I now have a D7000 with 80-200mm and 12-24mm. The 12-24mm gives me images almost as sharp as the Mamiya but I’ve never been happy with the 80-200mm as it’s images were always too soft – even with a tripod and higher aperture.
I’m considering the 70-200mm for the D7000. Your images look good but how much is attributed to the FX sensor. Do you think the D7000/70-200mm image quality will be as good (or better) than the 12-24mm?
Steve, if your 80-200mm is soft, you most likely have a focus problem with it – either backfocus or front focus (because the 80-200mm is a very sharp lens). You can send it to Nikon for service, but they will probably charge you a fee for it (if you are outside the 5 year warranty). If you do not want to pay for the service and would rather upgrade to 70-200mm – then go for it, it is a phenomenal lens and will give you incredibly sharp images. The 70-200mm will look even better on DX than on FX!
I said 80-200mm but what I had was DX 18-200mm. (I recently sold it.) I will probably get the 70-200mm as soon as I get the guts to spend that kind of cash.
Steve, the 18-200mm is crap compared to the 80-200mm or the 70-200mm :)
hi,
This is first time im contacting you. Videos reviews are more informative and one can understand better but in your case it is not like that. The way you explain the things, its God gifted. May God bless u more and more.
I bought D7000 after checking your review, then I read your review about 50mm 1.8G, even though most of the people like to have 50mm 1.4G, but relying on your review, Im glad I bought 50mm 1.8G. Then your review about 70-200mm 2.6G VR II came across and today I boughtthat as well.
Just few thing i want to figure out.
Im not professional photographer but like to be the best and trying my best. When I tried shooting with 70-200mm (at home) with only 2 bulbs were on and was trying to figure out the low light experties of the lense. but it gave me dark image. I was in manual mode with f8 and 1/10. And more thind I found When im trying to focus (within 3-4 feet from object) the lense gives sounds of trying to focus and also I can feel the movement of the lense. Can you please explain this.
Last, the most important thing as I (and might be lot other people) dont know how can we have best results using 70-200mm 2.8G VR II. Kindly give detail review on that.
Bless u
IK
u must definitely be busy some where, that Im not getting the reply. When ever u r free please do reply
Hi Nasim,
Will this lens (AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II) be suitable for my D300?
Thank you.
Hello Brendan,
Greetings.
Some time ago I was wondering like you if the 70-200 was a good match with the D300. Nasim convinced me to buy it which I did. I must say I could not be happier to shoot with this combination. The potos come out razor sharp and the colors are just amazing.
Thank you Nasim because of you ,I love photography even more now.
Gregor,
Thanks for the response! I will buy this lens as I feel it will cover all my bases with what type of photography I want to explore.
Hi Nasim,
thankx for great review/s !!! Really appreciate your nice work and photos.
PS. It looks, that you have got excellent copy of this lens. I´ve had 3 of them, all were returned due to problems with centering (side softness – not that common corner softness) or focusing issues or malfunctioning stabilization. I gave up searching for a good one.. Please let me know, if you decide to sell your piece :)
Hi Nasim,
I reread your excellent review since I am going to retire my old 70-200 (film generation) and getting the VR II version. So far I have good luck with all my Nikon lenses. It is an expensive lens and I am also winding my business down. But I cannot resist the temptation of making images and experiencing solace (that cannot be priced).
G’day from Australia Nasim. Just like everyone else is saying, you have producing a great review. I recently purchased this lens and couldn’t be happier. Especially when snapping soccer games. I was wondering which of the tc’s you recommend to get a bit more distance with it, without compromising on quality. Will any of them do? All the best. Richard
Hi Nasim,
I am a regular reader of your site and thanks for being an inspiration to many out there. I recently bought a 70-200 VRII from Adorama. It was a store demo, so got it $300.00 cheaper. One thing I noticed with this lens is that the VR is making loud click noise. It ‘click’ at activation and clicks again when it disengages. I used another copy of this lens in the past and I don’t remember hearing such a loud click with that copy.
This one is ‘clicking’ and I hear the motor sound and then it clicks again after that. It’s rather loud and I am a bit nervous about this. I am thinking about returning it but need to make sure that the VR has an issue before I do that. I plan to go to a local store and test their copy as well before making a decision. But could you please advise, if the ‘loud click + motor sound + loud click’ from the VR II system is normal?
Thank you
Liju
Nasim
I recently purchased a d7000 to upgrade from my d90. I also purchased a 70-200mm vrii to upgrade from my 70-300 mm lens. I did some test shots as u did using a mileage chart page from a road atlas. I took 19 images from about 10ft and the lens set at 200mm at different apeture settings and the only images that came out clear were at apeture setting of 5, 7.1 and 8. The numbers on the chart in all other images were lets say not as good as the ones in your sample shot of the maps pages. They could be sharpened using photoshop but just expected clearer images given your review of the lens and sample shots. Just wondering if I am expecting too much.
Hello Nasim,
Hope you are fine :) Have a few questions for you regarding my newly purchased Nikon 70-200mm vrii lens. Have taken a few shots with it but am not completely satisfied with it. Maybe I am doing a mistake but have 2 observations as below with which am a bit concerned about and not sure if this is a fault:
1> I also have the Nikon 24-70mm with which I am extremely happy with. When I shoot with the 70-200mm lens, I find its pictures considerably lacking the warmth which the 24-70mm gives me on my D700 with the same settings. Is this a fault? However, when I shoot inside even at F2.8, the warmth is a lot better than when I shoot out.
2> I was shooting with F4 aperture during late afternoon time in the shade of my house on a sunny day at ISO 200. I adjusted to the right exposure and shot a few photos with my D700 but all of them turned out to be quite over exposed. Only stopping down to F9 did the exposure come down to normal (although considerably lacking the warmth as in point 1), but my D700 exposes fine at F4 using my 24-70mm lens in a similar situation. Does this suggest a problem with the 70-200mm? Please advise.
As I am still within 14 days of the initial trial period would appreciate if you can reply at your earliest. Thanks a lot.
Best regards,
Pranav
Maybe the best lens Nikon has ever made?
Got my 80-200mm F2.8 AF-D ED (still made I believe) non-VR. But when I retire it I know what lens will replace it to go with my D800.
Hello Nasim,
really enjoying your website, plain speaking and factual. I wonder if you could offer some advise, I am a wildlife photographer mainly and have a D7000 which is great for me, i am using a 70-300 afs at present which is ok if i can get close enough but not sharp enough other-wise. Looking at your website a 400 + tc 1.4 would seem a good choice but I also like the sound of the 70-200 + tc 1.7/2.0. The thing that concerns me is although I want long range sharpness I also like the idea of being able to zoom out when an animal comes in close. I do visit nature reserves where long range is desirable but a lot of my photography is best described as sniper style, hence the zoom out. I cant afford both set ups so what do you think or is there an alternative?
best rgds
ray
Hello Naseem,
I take back my concerns of my previous comment posted on 15Apr’12, as I took a few more shots with this new Nikkor 70-200mm lens of mine and now I can’t see either of the “issues” I had observed earlier :))P Now I observed that this 70-200mm takes in more light for the same speed, ISO and focal length setting (of 70mm) compared to the Nikkor 24-70mm and hence tends to look very slightly lighter and hence lack the warmth of the 24-70mm. For such a physically long lens, its quite remarkable to be able to take in more light for the exact same settings as compared to the much smaller (rather comparatively smaller :)) 24-70mm lens.
Not sure if any brand new lens needs an initial break in period ? Because I seem to fadely remember that I also got fully satisfactory results with my 24-70mm Nikkor only after I took the first 30-40 shots. Any views on this one ? Please advise. Thanks.
Best regards,
Pranav
Hello Nasim,
Thank you for the wonderful review and images.iam a professional photographer and long time Canon user .I have pre ordered a D800 along with 70-200 and 24-70.After i went through your review iam worried about the focal breathing.Is it possible to take tight closeups,head shots with this lens at 200 mm or 135 mm.Kindly reply at the earliest as i am planning to buy it and also is the 80-200 a good choice for commercial photography on D800?.Thanks in advance.
regards
prasana