Is the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II a worthy upgrade?

[joelhollandphotography]

Hi all. I'm an amateur photographer and I've been shooting motorsport as and when I can for just over 18 months. I'm currently using a 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 on a D500 and looking to upgrade my lens. It'll be for static shots (mostly through fencing) and slow panning.

Would the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II be a worthy upgrade? Is it worth another £600 compared to what I already have?


Thanks in advance!

 

[Martin_99]

Hi all. I'm an amateur photographer and I've been shooting motorsport as and when I can for just over 18 months. I'm currently using a 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 on a D500 and looking to upgrade my lens. It'll be for static shots (mostly through fencing) and slow panning.

Would the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II be a worthy upgrade? Is it worth another £600 compared to what I already have?

Thanks in advance!

Depends...what is actually wrong with 70-300 for your shooting? Check your photos, will you miss 200-300mm range?

 

[joelhollandphotography]

I'm finding shooting through fencing is really difficult at f/5 or above. I don't actually think I'd miss the range much as my local track is very good for spectators.

My guess is that panning wise it would make no difference and would only be an improvement when shooting static shots, would that be a correct assumption?

Worth mentioning I may also have opportunities to shoot football matches later this year, so again the wider aperture may prove beneficial there I think?

 

[dccberry]

Yes, that would be a big upgrade. You might also consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, which would be even nicer, depending on the price you could find it for used.

 

[John Crowe]

While you may be blurring the fencing out of view, it will still have detrimental effects on the image. I have been photographing motorsports as an amateur, outside the fences, for forty years. I never bother shooting through typical diamond fencing. I do fit my supertelephotos through the larger farm type fencing. Look for areas where there is no fence, and look for higher ground to shoot over fencing.

I am surprised that a 70-200 would be long enough for you. I would think that an 80-400 would be much more useful. An 80-400 would also be far more useful for field sports. You could get away with the 70-200/2.8 and 1.4x on APS-C for the field sports.

The 70-200/2.8, even with a 1.4x, will be superior to your current zoom.

 

[Planterz]

I'm finding shooting through fencing is really difficult at f/5 or above. I don't actually think I'd miss the range much as my local track is very good for spectators.

What exactly happens? Is it an issue with the lens trying to focus on the fencing instead of what's behind it? If that's the case, you need a lens that has a focus limiter.

 

[joelhollandphotography]

Yes, that would be a big upgrade. You might also consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, which would be even nicer, depending on the price you could find it for used.

Thank you! I can actually find the Tamron for £80 less. Can I ask why you think the Tamron would be a nicer option than the Nikon?

 

[joelhollandphotography]

While you may be blurring the fencing out of view, it will still have detrimental effects on the image. I have been photographing motorsports as an amateur, outside the fences, for forty years. I never bother shooting through typical diamond fencing. I do fit my supertelephotos through the larger farm type fencing. Look for areas where there is no fence, and look for higher ground to shoot over fencing.

I am surprised that a 70-200 would be long enough for you. I would think that an 80-400 would be much more useful. An 80-400 would also be far more useful for field sports. You could get away with the 70-200/2.8 and 1.4x on APS-C for the field sports.

The 70-200/2.8, even with a 1.4x, will be superior to your current zoom.

Thank you John. I've had some success with shooting through certain fencing if I'm directly head on to it and very close, otherwise it does become a hinderance like you say.

My local circuit is Brands Hatch which is great for spectator viewing (and photographing) so I hardly ever use my current lens at 300mm. I haven't shot the football yet, but you are probably right that a 1.4x converter would come in very handy there.

I'll also look into the 80-400 as that's also a good shout!

 

[joelhollandphotography]

I'm finding shooting through fencing is really difficult at f/5 or above. I don't actually think I'd miss the range much as my local track is very good for spectators.

What exactly happens? Is it an issue with the lens trying to focus on the fencing instead of what's behind it? If that's the case, you need a lens that has a focus limiter.

If I'm not 'head on' enough to the fencing, it does become very difficult to maintain focus through it. What I'm finding most is that my photos are showing the soft outlines/patterns of the fencing. I only realised that a focus limiter was a thing this weekend but it sounds like it would massively help with it!

 

[Planterz]

I'm finding shooting through fencing is really difficult at f/5 or above. I don't actually think I'd miss the range much as my local track is very good for spectators.

What exactly happens? Is it an issue with the lens trying to focus on the fencing instead of what's behind it? If that's the case, you need a lens that has a focus limiter.

If I'm not 'head on' enough to the fencing, it does become very difficult to maintain focus through it. What I'm finding most is that my photos are showing the soft outlines/patterns of the fencing. I only realised that a focus limiter was a thing this weekend but it sounds like it would massively help with it!

The 70-200mm lens you're looking at does have a focus limiter. Your D500 is an APS-C camera, so that'll give you an effective 105-300mm range, vs the 105-450mm of your current lens, which is a substantial loss on the long end. If you're not using your lens at the longer lengths, then I'd say the 70-200mm would definitely be a good upgrade. If you need that extra range, check out the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR.

 

[John Crowe]

I have not been to Brands Hatch "yet." That's an awesome home track. Mine is Mosport in Canada. I didn't know about F1 in the 70's so I sadly missed out on that. My first time there was '84 and have been going a couple of times a year since 1999. Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, in Montreal and Watkins Glen in the US are my secondary tracks.

Let us know what lens you choose, and enjoy the season!

P.S. I know they are a bit old now but the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S is a superb lens even with a 1.4x. You can buy them for far less than a VR 2. This was my go to combo on a D2x for my kids "football." Soccer in Canada. It is sharper than the original VR, and very close to the VR 2. It was my panning lens back then too. As far as panning goes any of these lenses will provide superior image quality to your current zoom. You're about to find out how sharp good lenses are. If looking at these be careful because there are three or four versions, AF, AF D, and AF-S at least.

For all of your typical subjects VR is not required.

The other thing you are about to find out is how heavy these lenses are. Certainly not a problem for handholding but I eventually switched from the f2.8 to an f4 lens for panning. After panning repeatedly for thirty minutes the f2.8 lenses do become tiring.

 

[dccberry]

Yes, that would be a big upgrade. You might also consider the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2, which would be even nicer, depending on the price you could find it for used.

Thank you! I can actually find the Tamron for £80 less. Can I ask why you think the Tamron would be a nicer option than the Nikon?

It is better optically than the VII version of the Nikkor lens- closer to the latest "E" version. I think it has an electronic aperture control, instead of the old-school mechanical coupling.