 Great zoom lens for full frame/FX and cropped/DX Nikon camera bodies |
| Review Date: December 3, 2009 |
| Reviewer: LGO, QC MM RP |
I am writing this review from the perspective of someone who also owns the earlier version of the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras. This new lens will be referred to as "VR2" in this review while the earlier version of this lens will be referred to as the "VR1".
Here are my initial impressions after using this lens and comparing it with the earlier version of this lens, the VR1.
This professional-grade telephoto zoom lens is very well-made. Its focus is lightning fast and it produces very sharp photos with very good contrast and dynamic colors even when shot wide-open at f/2.8. The increased sharpness at the corner is easily noticeable even at f/2.8 and now makes this lens suitable for landscape shots. I find this increased sharpness at the corner beneficial even for portrait shots when I shoot off-center rule-of-thirds portrait shots. The improved color and contrast is easily noticeable in certain shots in back-to-back comparison against the VR1.
The VR mechanism is very effective and helpful in keeping the photos sharp even when shooting at low shutter speeds in low-light conditions. The 1-stop improvement over the earlier version, the VR1, makes a very big difference, specially when shooting this lens from extended to maximum focal length with no monopod or tripod support. Being able to shoot handheld at 1/10th at 200mm is no easy task but it is possible with this new version.
The tripod leg support is nothing less than excellent ... slim yet very sturdy, with provision for two-screws mounting support. The tripod support can easily be rotated for shooting in vertical portrait position or downside up for easy hand carry. The tripod leg can easily be detached if needed for a less-obtrusive hold when shooting handheld.
Though this lens is heavier than the VR1, the added weight is not immediately noticeable. The shorter length and larger diameter makes for a more balanced hold when shooting handheld.
How does this lens compare with the earlier version, the VR1? Here is a quick and easy to read summary:
First, a definition of terms. The term "FX" refers to full frame Nikon camera bodies (D3x, D3s, D3 and D700). The term "DX" refers to cropped/APS-C Nikon camera bodies (D300s, D300, D200, D100, D2, D1, D90, D80, D70, D60, D40, D5000, D3000).
THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1
1. Sharp corners on FX and DX, even when shooting wide-open at f/2.8
2. Less vignetting on FX and DX when shooting wide-open at f/2.8 (vignetting on DX at f/2.8 now irrelevant)
3. 1-stop improvement in VR (1-stop improvement really makes a big difference when shooting at 135-200mm).
4. Improvement in the bokeh compared to the VR1
5. Improvement in color and contrast, specially when shooting backlit subjects against the sun
6. More resistant to lens flaring (due to nano-coating)
7. Shorter more compact length makes it easier to pack, carry and use in crowded spaces
(the lens and the hood of the VR2 are both shorter than the lens and hood of the VR1)
THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS LENS OVER THE VR1
1. More expensive than VR1
2. Slightly heavier than VR1
3. Not as good as the VR1 when used with teleconverters in DX bodies for long reach
4. Shorter reach or magnification than the VR1 when shooting at close range
(e.g., shooting at 200mm focal length is equivalent to 164mm when shooting from 10 feet away)
For FX users who still do not have a 70-200mm f/2.8G zoom lens, go ahead and acquire this lens. The corner sharpness of this newer version is remarkable, specially when stepped down for landscape shots. Even for portrait shots, the increased sharpness at the corner is beneficial when shooting rule of thirds portrait shots.
For FX users who already have the VR1, you will need to gauge whether the advantages will be worth the cost of getting this lens. If you need to shoot at this lens maximum focal length of 200mm, the lower magnification or the shorter "effective focal length in terms of field of view" when shooting at near range may be a major concern for you. This is specially a concern for events or wedding photographers. Note however that some photographers have adapted to this and actually found it helpful that the magnification remain near constant which minimizes the need to zoom out as the photographer approaches a subject or when the subject gets closer to the photographer. For some photographers, the reduced magnification when shooting at closer range is thus something that one can adapt to and take advantage of. It would still be best however to try the lens first and see how this impacts on your shooting style.
For DX only users who already have a VR1, I currently see no advantages to upgrading to this new version unless you need the one-stop advantage of the VR2, and/or if you want even less vignetting (easily corrected in post-processing), and/or if you want a lens that is more resistant to flare ... and/or more importantly, planning to upgrade or to add an FX body.
For DX users who still do not own the VR1, I recommend that you seriously consider getting this lens. Not only do you get the benefits of the newer version as listed above, getting this lens means that you will be well-positioned when you upgrade or add an FX body. Once you acquire or add an FX body, it will not surprise me that you will be doing a lot more shooting with the FX than with the DX. Since this lens is optimized for the FX, then getting this lens over the VR1 may prove to be a good decision. With regard to the issue of a shorter effective reach when shooting at near ranges, this should not be an issue with DX due to the 1.5X field of view of the APS-C sensor. If anything, it may even be an advantage when shooting up close.
Ultimately, both versions of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G have their strengths and their weaknesses and it is up to the user to decide which version best fits his/her requirements.
As an FX and DX user, I have bought this new version knowing full well its strengths and its one limitation. The VR2 improved on what is already an impressive performance of the VR1, and then some. Except on the issue of lower magnification or focus breathing which hardly matters for me, the VR2 is an impressive step-up from the VR1.
I did retain my VR1 but this is primarily as a substitute to using a Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 VR. Matched with my 3 kinds of Nikkor teleconverters, the The VR1 is my lighter (and less expensive) version of the Nikkor 200-400mm and I use this with my DX D-300. The excellent center resolution of the VR1 is an asset when used in this manner. The other time when I use the VR1 on my D300 is when my VR2 is already on my D700. For all other usages however, I use the VR2 whether on FX or DX.
EDIT: For those who need to shoot up-close at 200mm focal length for maximum reach, this bit of info will be helpful.
Distance of subject / Effective focal length in field of view of the Nikon VR2 at 200mm
(Nikon 70-200mm VR2 at 200mm compared against a Nikon 200mm prime/fixed focal length lens)
1.27m ............... 128mm
1.40m ............... 132mm
2.00m ............... 147mm
3.00m ............... 164mm
5.00m ............... 176mm
10.0m ............... 186mm
Credits: Marianne Oelund |
Going on Safari, shooting plays or sporting event? Read on...
|
| Review Date: December 19, 2009 |
| Reviewer: A. Ioannides, Park City, UT USA |
When I was younger, my SLR whet everywhere with me. I was an avid amateur photographer and have books and books of negatives and contact sheets. I travel a lot and grew tired of two things, viewing everything through a lens and lugging tons of glass and gear. So I decided it was time to become a tourist, loose the gear and got Contax G1. The lenses were awesome, I could still change them if I wanted to, but it was small(er) and quickly became a great travel companion. I knew it would be the last film camera I would ever own.
Last year, we decided to Safari in Africa. Now the G1 is nice, but I needed some serious glass and it was time to go digital so I started researching. Nikon just launched the Nikon D90 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) and it looked like a good choice for the money, and while not as good as Contax or Leica, I always liked the Nikon lenses so I started looking for a few good lenses to take with me. I still want to travel light, so 2 zooms were the answer.
Back in the day I became addicted to low light lenses. I LOVE the ability to shoot in low light without a flash and to control depth of field. My favorite SLR lens from was a 55 mm 1.4. At 4 or 5.6 it shot better looking photos than the slower lenses. Once I decided that I wanted f/2.8 and a zoom, I started looking at what lenses would go with my D90. I also make up my mind to spend more on lenses than on the body for two reasons. I could always upgrade the body and get more features, but the lenses I would keep for a long time. Also, the lens has more of an effect on the quality of the photo than the body.
I knew I would be shooting wildlife, so 300mm seemed to be the minimum I could get away with. More on that later. The FX lenses give you a 1.5x boost in focal length on a DX body. So the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S NIKKOR Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras actually works like a 105-300mm on my D90.
Before the trip I shot some shots around Park City and the results were stunning. I practiced on deer, elk, horses and even some landscape shots. I could not believe the quality at just about any focal length and f-stop. My biggest surprise came when my wife asked me to shoot a play the girls were in. I took my camera and armed with only a monopod, shot about 200 shots of the girls on stage with only available light. I know plays and shows look like there is a lot of light, but anyone who has attempted to shoot in that situation will tell you, there is simply not enough light. The detail and sharpness were stunning. Even shooting at f/2.8 the photos were clear and with and effective 300mm I could get very close. After my wife saw the photos, I was out of the dog house with the high price tag of the new camera outfit.
I needed one more wide angle zoom for snapshots so I got the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens and just for nostalgia i also picked up the 55 f1.4. I packed everything up into a Lowepro Fastpack 250 (Black) and set off for Africa. Read the blog at and view photos at View some Photos at: [...]
I shot about 4000 photos and while on Safari and either I am a better photographer now or a good camera can bring out the best in a person. Now I know people shoot photographs, not cameras - but I also know a musician will not use a beginner instrument to perform once they become proficient.
The photographs were excellent. The Vibration reduction came in handy and together with the wide aperture, allowed me to shoot clear photographs using a monopod or handheld. The color and detail were exceptional. I was able to get some wonderful shots of wildlife and the countryside. With one of the slower to focus lenses I would have missed about 20% of my shots.
The only negatives: The lens if heavy and long, so if you are not as concerned about quality you can get a DX lens for less money and save your back. But I wanted the versatility of f/2.8 and the sharpness of pro lens. I hiked tons of miles and do not regret having to carry this lens at all. It is expensive, but if you have the money, get the lens. If you decide like I have to upgrade to an FX format camera this lens will serve you well.
Here is my biggest recommendation, if you are going on Safari, 300mm is about the SHORTEST lens that will work. I found myself wanting more OFTEN. I would recommend going to 500mm if you are looking to shoot wildlife. The large game shots were good, but smaller game needed more, and if you are looking to shoot birds, I would say 500mm is the minimum. Who knew that Africa was so rich in bird life? I was not prepared and as such got very few good photographs of birds.
In summary, if you need to shoot sports or shows in available light, this is your lens. If you are looking for an excellent quality lens to shoot action or wildlife outside - this is your lens. If you are looking to shoot birds, go long - very long. |
Wow..What a lens
|
| Review Date: December 15, 2009 |
| Reviewer: ATK, MA, USA |
There are a lot of improvements for this new version.
1) very sharp...even at f/2.8, better than any 70-200mm zooms in the market now
Seriously,the image is clear and super sharp.
2) VRII works better as claimed. Shooting 1/10s at 200mm is so easy.
3) focuses to 4.6 ft throughout the entire zoom range, thinking about zoom in and out without refocusing the image again. It is huge advantage, and of course, no other lens can do this.
4) very compact design. Now you can easily put it in your camera bag.
5) Small and slim hood design, easy to keep on the lens (reverse the hood) You can even use the lens without removing the hood from reversed position.
However, all buyers should beware of some exceptional design.
The VRII has 1/8.3 maximum magnification ratio compared to the VRI (1/6.1).
So, it might be not a good idea if you want to take pictures very close to subjects, and expect good macro ability.
For me, maximum magnification ration at 1/8.3 is more than enough. I am talking about taking headshot of human.
Thanks |
Love my Nikkor 70-200 VR II
|
| Review Date: December 19, 2009 |
| Reviewer: Jessica Benigni, Tampa, Fl |
| I've had my 70-200 VR II for 2 weeks now and am in LOVE with it! I needed it for my 7 year old son's basketball games :) I know, "need" may not be totally true, but since I plan on keeping this through my 4 children's childhoods I believe it is money well spent! This lens has been an absolute joy to use, especially compared to the dark and noisy pictures that I got with the Nikkor 70-300 VR model that I had for a week before returning! This lens is WELL WORTH the extra money and extra weight! Since I shoot with a D90, I'm also glad that the reach is reduced on the close subjects as it helps avoid the need of switching to a wider angle lens when the action comes in a little closer. The only problem that I currently have with this lens is that I never want to put it down! |
Great at what it does
|
| Review Date: December 4, 2009 |
| Reviewer: David Elliott, |
L. Go has written a great review of this lens. If you have not read it, do so. I will not repeat what has been said. It is all true. I am going to compare the 70-200 to the 80-400. Each lens has advantages over the other.
The two lenses are about he same weight. They are both FX lenses that do very well on DX cameras. The 70-200 is longer or shorter depending on the extension of the 80-400 (the 70-200 changes length very little, the 80-800 changes greatly in length). Both lenses use Nikon Pro standard 77mm filters. Both have questionable tripod mounts. Both come in very nice black nylon cases. There is a lot in common between them.
The advantages of the 70-200 are speed of focus, larger maximum aperture, sharper image and greater contrast and color rendition. This lens is very good at everything it dose.
The 80-400 is much more of a mixed bag. At the shorter end (80-200) it is a very good lens. It has more geometrical distortion than the 70-200, but the color and contrast are very good. The old style focus is a bit slow, but fine for many things. When you get longer than 300 the lens becomes less good. You loose contrast and color rendition.
Taking into account that the 80-400 is $800 cheaper, the decision about which one you should get is not clear. If you are shooting sports the 70-200 is MUCH faster. The 80-400 is the more flexible lens, but you give up quality to get that flexibility.
My 80-400 did very well when I was on safari. The extra long reach was worth the lower quality. The 70-200 is great at weddings and when sharper is more important. The choice is yours, but both lenses are very good. They just do different things. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
