Which Nikkon 70-200mm F2.8 to use with D800

[JHughes001]

Hi All,

I would like to get a really good zoom lens for landscape photography in which 99% of cases I would be using a tripod. I am considering an F2.8 so I can really isolate subject and work in lower light.

I am thinking of trying to get a good deal on a Nikkon 70-200 F2.8 but I'm not sure which model. I like the idea of getting the older model as a budget buy (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR) as opposed to the newer model (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR). My thinking is if I am using a tripod most of the time I don't really need the shake reduction or silent motor features etc. But I also read that an older lens coupled with a higher mega pixel camera may not produce as good images.

Should I be considering any other manufacturers?

Any help or insight anybody has to offer is appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Justin

 

[Highland grey beard]

When I had a D300 I got the VRI version of the 2.8 and thought it quite exceptional in IQ. When I got my D800 it was the one FX lens I retained. I still thought it pretty good in inage quality and the VR was perfectly acceptable in general use. I have since moved to the D850 and again found it much the same - IQ and VR OK. BUT I traded it in for the E. Boy is that something else! Leaving aside VR capability, especially if you see yourself as primarily a tripod user, the IQ is in a wholly different ball park. Simply it is outstanding and unless cost is the overriding factor I would not hesitate and go for the E. The difference will be clear on the D800 just as much as the D850.

 

[JHughes001]

Cool thanks Andy some great points for me there!

 

[pluton]

I shot with the 70-200/2.8VR2 several times on my D800s. It was a very high performing lens.

 

[Parry Johnson]

I used the two-ring 80-200 f2.8D ("N") for years before buying my fist FX camera, a D800. Although that lens did a perfectly fine job, I upgraded to the VRII version and never regretted it. Yes, the newest E version rates better, but not enough so to make me want to upgrade and pay double. If the ultimate quality is what you're after, and you won't be shooting action, then you're probably better off with several prime lenses over that range.

The 200mm f2.0 VR is certainly NOT a budget option -- you'll pay double again for only one stop difference, and your focus has to be exact because of the extremely shallow depth of field. The 300 f4 P is a better option for isolation, cost and size.

As for third party options, there are many, but the current leader is often considered to be the Tamron G2.

 

[digigobler]

Seems most landscape photography is done at f stops greater than 2.8, more in the f/8 to f/16 range. With a tripod your shutter speed becomes less important in lower light situations. That said, I too wanted a 70-200 f/2.8, but I chose the Nikon 70-200 f/4 and saved $1,000 plus. It is very, very sharp. Also, the VR is astounding for when you are shooting hand held in low light. Something to consider...

Steve

 

[mais51]

Seems most landscape photography is done at f stops greater than 2.8, more in the f/8 to f/16 range. With a tripod your shutter speed becomes less important in lower light situations. That said, I too wanted a 70-200 f/2.8, but I chose the Nikon 70-200 f/4 and saved $1,000 plus. It is very, very sharp. Also, the VR is astounding for when you are shooting hand held in low light. Something to consider...

Steve

 

[MattiD80]

I have been drooling/wanting the FL F2.8E (70-200mm) badly. But recent using of my 70-200mm F4 (especially since i recently upgrade from d800 to d810), has me perplexed. It's my sharpest zoom without question. There is not a single zoom that i own that is as sharp (14-24mm, 24-70mm F2.8E VR, Tamron 100-400mm).

The VR and autofocus (on d810, was a bit less snappy/accurate on d800) are second to noone. While i know the FL will have faster autofocus (my 24-70mm is faster, and the FL is even faster according to other ppl), i have never missed a photo, autofocus is very fast, (and super accurate!). The VR is the best of all my lenses. And for a telelens imo that's very telling, cause that's usually quite shaky. Thinking how thin this lens is (67mm filter thread, rather then 77mm, + thick metal tube usually), and how 'few' movement the VR can do, it's simply crazy. The colours, etc are also very good.

Looking at the pictures now, while i know on paper the fl ED is sharper (especially wide open), i'm kinda meh on upgrading. At f8 they probably are in each other territory and I almost never go more wide open (and even if i do, sharpness is still very good). VR can be as good, but not better then the F4, of that i'm sure (F4 VR is better then VRII version).

Thing is, on any travel, the 70-200mm F4 is amazing, the FL ED, seems more niche, for closer to home travels, though I still might get it someday if there is a good deal on a used one, just to see, and have a bit more portrait possibilities for when i need them. But selling the f4? Nope, never. I'm a pixelpeeper, and this lens is epic. Maybe i have a very good copy, but I think most of this lens are, everyone who uses it is happy. Imo one of the finest lenses of nikon (weight, price and image quality combination is hard to do, and they succeeded big time here).

 

[JHughes001]

Thanks for the advice will definitely think about whether the 2.8 is worth it over the 4

 

[vbuhay]

Hi All,

I would like to get a really good zoom lens for landscape photography in which 99% of cases I would be using a tripod. I am considering an F2.8 so I can really isolate subject and work in lower light.

I am thinking of trying to get a good deal on a Nikkon 70-200 F2.8 but I'm not sure which model. I like the idea of getting the older model as a budget buy (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR) as opposed to the newer model (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8E FL ED VR). My thinking is if I am using a tripod most of the time I don't really need the shake reduction or silent motor features etc. But I also read that an older lens coupled with a higher mega pixel camera may not produce as good images.

Should I be considering any other manufacturers?

Any help or insight anybody has to offer is appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Justin

I use the AF-S 70-200 F2.8G VRII


with d800e






with D850

 

[mbecke]

Based upon what I have been able to compare, the new FL is sharper wide open than is the VR II version. However, stopped down a little (i.e., to f4 or so), no observable differences appear to exist between the VR II and the new FL versions. They are both equally sharp at f4+. So if you are going to use the lens at or near f2.8, the FL version will be superior. Otherwise, either will do just fine.

 

[JHughes001]

Thanks for the input, and thanks to previous user for the nice photos, great to see some examples.

 

[armin304]

I have the older VR I for 12 years now and with the DX cameras I was quite happy with it. This changed after I got my D700 and I did take my first landscape shots with it at 200mm. Even stopped down, the corners aren't good. My solution was to get a Tokina AT-X 340 AF 4/100-300 for little money (260€) and keep the Nikon for anything I need fast AF and the corners don't matter.