Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras..
Buy Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras By Nikon
Most helpful customer reviews
599 of 616 people found the following review helpful.
By LGO
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
Edit: Sept. 13, 2010: I sold my Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and retained only the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2.
233 of 249 people found the following review helpful.
By dilemnia
Speaking as a professional photographer - I have been using the original 70-200mm VR 2.8 for a while now and loved every moment of it. It doesn't matter how familiar I am with this lens, it still feels magical at times to be able to separate subject and background while pulling the background in as smooth bokeh. As most pros will tell you, the 70-200mm VR 2.8 "is" the bread and butter wedding portrait lens and more. That was then. This is now - as soon as I saw the announcement of this "new version", I pre-ordered it. While reading colleague Cliff Mautner's blog, I simply couldn't wait!! It finally arrived early this month(12/2009), I did some quick in-home test and was extremely impressed!! Not to reiterate on the amazing optical quality, the new version VR allows me to get a sharp image down to 1/5th!! and consistently at 1/15th. (The best $2400 I've ever spent!!). I packed up the original version and was getting ready to eBay it the following week!
I then took the lens for a real-world test few days later on my last wedding of the year. To give you some background - I always use this lens during ceremonies and in churches while knowing my movements are limited. I usually capture journalistic ceremonial actions as well as the reactions at either end of the pews at about 10-20 feet distance to produce intimate images. Something struck me as odd this day. I initially felt the reach was somehow inadequate, especially at 200mm, but, knowing that I should just love this lens, I quickly attributed this to the large church I was shooting in. However, after reading some reviews and complaints, I reluctantly compared this new version to my original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and then the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED (as a second opinion) and found out that at 200mm, this lens indeed comes in shorter. It's like a 65mm-155mm equivalent at about 7 feet distance comparing to the other two lenses. The original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED was about the same at 200mm which the latter zooms in just a tiny bit closer. Unfortunately for those who doesn't owned the original 70-200mm VR 2.8, it would be hard to compare. But if you have the original on hand, please try it for yourself. Use a tripod and shoot a fix subject with all these lenses. It's easy to compare the older and the newer versions, simply turn both to 200mm and shoot it. As for the 70-300, dial the ring to 200 and align the middle zero to the indicator dot on your focal ring, you should get a solid 200mm reading from your EXIF data. The difference should be obvious. I am well aware that there's going to be variations between lenses, but as for the same manufacturer and essentially the same lens, the difference is simply too great. I will wait for the New Canon 70-200mm which I doubt would have this issue (Update 4/24/10 - The new Canon 70-200mm IS II is simply amazing - without the Nikon magnification shrink issue).
With the exception of a flimsier hood and the magnification shrink issue, this lens is overall slightly better in just about every other aspect than the Original (since the original is already a "CLASSIC", it's hard to do much better). Nonetheless, there's definitely improvements in color, vignette control, CA, distortion, and the VR is simply "incredible". Also, this lens is just a tiny bit shorter and it doesn't look like a "Bamboo" stick as the original:)
(It breaks my heart to rate this "new version" 4 stars not because it's performance and construction but simply because that it does not "replace" the lens that it's "supposed to" replace. The focal length changes with the distance so the 65-155mm is a rough average while shooting within 30 feet. The closer you are to your subject, the worse it gets. For instance, at minimum focusing distance, the new 200mm is about the equivalent of 130mm on the original!! And more unfortunate for me, I shoot most of my subjects within 30 feet distance. Here's the full comparison at under 30 feet distance(added 1/10/10) - I did the test personally using Manfrotto 190 CXPRO3 and a tape measure:
New 70-200 VR II........Original 70-200 VR
4ft. 200mm.....................130mm
6ft. 200mm.....................150mm
10ft. 200mm.....................170mm
15ft. 200mm.....................175mm
20ft. 200mm.....................180mm
25ft. 200mm.....................180mm
30ft. 200mm.....................190mm (even at 30 feet, it's still not a 200mm comparing to the original)
So picture this, if you are in a tight church 10 feet away from your subjects and crouched between a rock and a hard place, would you say that it's okay when you want to use a "200mm" lens for close-ups of a ring exchange(for instance) but realize that you only have a "170mm"?!! Sure you can crop, but that means you are going to lose 3-5 megapixels of resolution! This is exactly why I felt the reach was "inadequate" during my initial real-world test. Yes, if you move away far enough from your subject the effective focal length will eventually equate to the original but then again, it simply isn't the same application anymore.
Some has brought up the issue of magnification ratio (in comment, thanks to ATK!!) - everyone knows that one can get the same 1:1 ratio from a 50mm vs 60mm vs a 105mm etc.. But that's not really the issue "here". With macro applications, one can simply change the mag ratio/distance by moving a few inches to and fro the subject but with real human subjects, a few inches becomes a few feet!
Hence, if one normally use this lens at various distances within 30 feet, you will notice a huge change. The closer you get, the more severe it will be. While capturing moments as it unfolds in a fraction of a second, this lens' focal length just isn't as effective comparing to the original version. I love all my Nikons gears and this is perhaps the first real disappointment that I had to encounter for a while. (Perhaps another is the SB-900's overheating problem.) This focal length issue may not be too serious to many people but as far as my personal applications specifically assigned to this lens, and perhaps to many others like me, it is quite irksome.
One last thing, to capture normal human movement(not fast action), 1/100th of a second is a good start. I usually opt between 1/80th -1/160th as minimum - depending of the speed of the movement. So for this application, the VR will only keep your lens steady but it will not stop action. You will undoubtedly get a motion blur at 1/10th, 1/15th, 1/30th, 1/40th, etc.
Thanks - Sean Marshall Lin
88 of 95 people found the following review helpful.
By Capt RB
The original 70-200 AF-S VRI is a legendary optic that continues to be among Nikon's most popular professional zooms. We had all hoped, at least in professional circles, that the new version would eclipse the old in every respect. Sadly, this is not the case. The new lens is optically superior over the same focal lengths, but this new lens exhibits the strongest focal breathing effect ever seen in a pro lens of this type. No other 70-200 or 80-200 will be stunted in reach as this new one is. It's quite unique in that respect and this issue will be a deal breaker for some event, wedding and portrait shooters. It is not a small issue and it cannot be corrected. Stranger still is the voices of several prominent online reviewers who seem bent on masking or underplaying this significance of a 70-200mm zoom that falls 72mm short at close focus. It's hard for many of us to believe that they are not protecting a relationship with Nikon. Typically, when shooting a wedding, we found that the new lens was too short and images required cropping. At a children's party the same issue presented itself. At 10 feet away it was not possible to frame a face as the original lens could do. And yet this lens is absolutely state of the art in every other respect. Likely, this will be one of Nikon's most debated lenses, though those who shoot over typically longer distances will find this lens ideal. Still, Nikon has a clear error on their website. They claim that the 70-200 maintains it's full zoom range at minimum focus. And it most certainly does not. Any honest shooter should not debate this issue. It WILL effect some professional applications.
So let's have a look at this beauty!
Handling:
The new lens is actually quite close to the size and weight of the original. I've put it on a D700, D3 and D90. I find it balances well on the D700 with grip as with the D3. On the D90 it's poorly balanced. Just for kicks I also put on my baby D40, which had almost absurd handling, but one could get used to it. The loss of the focus lock button was not missed by me. This is a heavy lens and it can tire a person out over the hours on a job.
Build Quality:
Well, I think we all knew what to expect and got it. I'm not sure that the 70-200 is built better than the old version, but it might be. It's 100% top notch.
Sonics:
The new lens focuses as quietly as my old lens, but the VR noise is cut by half or more. In fact you have to strain to hear it. Nice little improvement!
Sharpness:
Thus far I find sharpness exceeds all of my other lenses and that includes a new Tamron 180. Previously I found the Tamron 90 and 180 sharper than the Nikon 200, 24-70, 105 vr, 28-70 2.8 and so on. But the new zoom is so stunningly sharp wide open, that it's truly a marvel.
This shot, wide open at 2.8 and set for 200mm, proves what kind of performance is to be expected...
[...].
Color, Contrast and Bokeh Rendition
It's difficult to say if the new lens exceeds the original for color, but the obvious improvement in contrast certainly helps. The nano coating is doing it's job and the results, even around strong stray light sources appear to be universally superb. Bokeh is also what we'd expect. At the same apparent focal lengths it's on par with the original lens, but the micro-contrast makes images pop more and that may lead some to think bokeh is improved.
Zoom Range
This is probably going to effect many people more than any other single aspect of the design. This lens exhibits severe magnification loss which may significantly effect your work, especially at distances below 15 feet. This has been discussed and outlined (at last), but to put it in a nutshell....at about 4.6 feet away you'll be at 128mm, which is a loss of 36%. While every other zoom of this range and caliber exhibit this effect, none have ever lost so much. This is unique to the 70-200 II and it will effect wedding & event shooters, not to mention photojournalists. It's significant enough that Nikon is seeing lenses returned. My source for that info is a Nikon rep and a saleperson at B&H photo. While some people are compelled to debate this issue, you simply need to say "135mm at 10 feet away is NOT the same as 190mm at 10 feet away." If you can say that and understand BASIC photography, then you already know that even 10mm makes a huge difference for some types of shooting. Sadly, we're looking at a LOT more than 10mm loss here.
Here is a series of shots taken at a party:
[...].
While the shots are passable, some also required heavy crops at distances where the original 70-200 would have required little to none. My usage of the lens on a job led me to a simple conclusion: The loss of magnification is a problem. But the lens is so good at close range at it's typical focal lengths that it's still worth keeping. Using with DX or with a TC are also viable options. I've seen one informal test showing that the 70-200 II with a TC 1.4 is still sharper than the older version and that's with both set for F4. That's amazing!
Still, people who enjoyed using this lens for heavy portrait work may be unhappy. The lens was known for it's flexibility in that regard and it's clear that some of that is lost. A major online reviewer actually dared to suggest that 135mm at 6 feet was "good enough because that's a classic portrait focal length."
Can you imagine anyone saying such a thing? With the original version of this lens, 185mm was a pretty classic focal length too! It's amazing what depths people will plumb to protect their interests.
Focus
I don't know exactly how or why, but my focus hit score yesterday was nearly 100%, which is on par with my 24-70. I was always closer to 90% with the old 70-200. So I'm going to say, rather offhandedly, that this lens has better AF. If so....it's a BIG deal!
VR II
No huge surprise here. You can, with some good technique, hold this puppy down for sharp shots below 1/10. I could do that with the original but worked a LOT harder to make it work.
Value:
Well, you can kick yourself in the head every day and say it's fun, but a lot of people will call you crazy. The new version costs 2400.00 US and that's nearly 800 more than I paid for the VR I. But most people think the old one's price was insane, so why worry. High end lenses cost a lot of money. I paid 3K for my speakers and a lot of people would call that nutty as well. Tomorrow I'll do a job using the new lens that will easily pay for it, so for a professional it's much less of a question. Do we get 500 dollars worth of improvements? Heck no, not with the loss of FL! Is the new lens worth having? Heck yes, especially with the better IQ and VR! If I was a hobbyist shooter I'd probably stick with my old version and be happy.
Summary:
The 70-200 VR II is a bit perplexing. It's IQ is really beyond most expectations. My copy shows sharpness that exceeds a stopped down 85 1.8 and my macro primes as well. But a good deal of people will be troubled by the loss of apparent FL at closer range. One fellow on another forum has already explained clearly why this hurts wedding work or even shooting someone standing at a podium from 12 feet away. If you typically used the previous version at closer distances, you'll either adapt or be unhappy. Adding a TC helps, but now we have a 2800 dollar lens! So if someone wanted a pro zoom for event work and they wanted to do a LOT of ultra tight portrait shots, this would probably not be a top choice anymore. In the end the ultimate value of this lens is somewhat diminished by the obvious advantages at MFD of the original. Yet we do get stellar state of the art IQ that's hard to pass up, even at 128mm MFD. My choice is simple. I've decided to keep mine and use a TC 1.4 or 1.7 and also learn to use it on DX more often if the situation demands it. It's not as sleek a solution as I hoped, but the resulting images should be better overall. I rate the lens at 4 stars. For it to hit 5 stars it would have come close or matched the MFD ability of the original. You simply can't ignore how good the original was in that respect and I'm disturbed by seemingly intelligent shooters out there who are content to present misinformation on this point. One of the most famous online reviewers actually said that the new 70-200 VR II exceeds the performance of the original in every way. Of course that's patently impossible when the new version can't even come close to the near focus focal range of the original. Whatever fuels this "Protect Nikon" position, it does only harm to the photographic community.
I'm hoping that mainstream reviewers present honest detailed reviews that pull no punches with a lens that is unique against every other 70-200 and 80-200 on the market when it comes to losing magnification at less than infinity. A reviewer should respect the full scope of applications for a pro lens, report on a products strengths and weaknesses and leave his own agenda at the door.
So: The new 70-200 VR II is going to be a fantastic upgrade for some shooters and a serious letdown for others. For me it falls somewhere in the middle. Based on your individual style and job requirements, YOU must make your own ultimate judgment.
It's a crying shame that Nikon failed to maintain the reach factor at close focus as in the original 70-200. If they had, then this would be among the greatest lenses ever designed. Failing that I rate as basically equal overall to the original version. which is really better for some types of shooting.
![Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tYilM4zz6hU8mV3uxHk-0xW1W7WGqCedCIUL9XptATqq6yu_Xe0p3rhKqxXqmxYaGP8Gf-L8OjkR3Aqv4WU5dyO7umk4aLCrfTr3EJtBXyOmohrn6M2g8C=s0-d)
