70 - 200 f/2.8?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

MikeA

MikeA

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hi,

I am really loving my new (used) 600 mm f4 FL ED, since it gives me really tack sharp images with great backgrounds and I always shoot wide open. Autofocus is super fast too in combination with my d850. In comparison to all of my more normal priced glass, it has been a huge leap in quality for me. I have not been using my slower PF lenses any more and might sell them.

I am now considering to get some new glass - also faster - for closer targets and am considering something like 70 - 200 mm f/2.8 E FL. In reviews you find…one of the best lenses Nikon has ever made…

What is your opinion? A good buy or are there better alternatives in this focal length area? I thought a zoom like this - if it really has the great quality described - could come in handy as a second lens to the 600 f/4.
 
Member's gallery
That's an interesting second choice and perhaps it would be useful if you could provide some context with respect to subjects/situations you are intending to shoot? Yes, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a spectacular lens though like any model, it has particular strengths and weaknesses.
 
Member's gallery
As Ajrmd mentioned, we really need to know more about what you shoot and what situations you find yourself in that would make a 70-200 valuable.

The 70-200 is usually one of, if not the sharpest, zooms in a product line. It's a focal length as old as time.

For me, with a 400/600/800mm lens, the 70-200 usually doesn't get much use unless it's a specific wildlife safari or something like that. I'd get more value out of a 100-400, 200-500, etc.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The 70-200 is my favorite lens. I recently picked up a used E version to complement my first one, the VR1, I've been using for 20 years for sports and wildlife. Diabolically sharp and fastest focusing lens I own. Wonderful with portraits as well. Only reason I upgraded was because I got a used D850 last year and figured that sensor needed the best glass.

Depending upon what you shoot (I tend toward dogs, and larger mammals and birds), you may consider the 120-300 f/2.8. I believe there is a Nikon one on FM classifieds right now. It handles TCs very well. My local Craigslist has the Sigma version...also very sharp...that came out before the Nikon one (and cheaper). This one is a steal at $1200! I am trying to justify it, especially since I often use the 70-200 with a 1.4x TC...so f/4 rather that f/2.8.
 
Member's gallery
I always found the 70-200 a bit short for wildlife. I had an extremely sharp copy of the 80-400 AF-S as a perfect match for my 600mm. YMMV depending on your subjects.

BUT - the 70-200 f2.8 E is an extraordinarily excellent lens. I used it in architectural and landscape photography and liked it a lot.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
That's an interesting second choice and perhaps it would be useful if you could provide some context with respect to subjects/situations you are intending to shoot? Yes, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a spectacular lens though like any model, it has particular strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
I will be using my 600 mm most of the time for wildlife because of reach, but if I go to Yellowstone i.e. this lens on a second body might be great for bigger animals at closer distance and/or habitat/landscape images.
 
Member's gallery
I would not go on any trip without my 70-200. The FL version is excellent - nearly equal to the new Z version. This is my third version of the 70-200 over the past 20 years. They all work very well with the 1.4 TC.

I use the lens for environmental wildlife, landscapes, portraits, canine, equestrian, and sports (golf). I've even used it for pano landscapes. If it is long enough for the situation, it's a great lens. Paired with the 600mm f/4 you still may have a gap. The 500mm PF, 400mm f/2.8, or possibly a 300mm f/4 (AFS or PF) could help to fill that gap and cover times when you need something more mobile or smaller.
 
Member's gallery
I do have a 300 PF and 500 PF, but since having the 600 f/4 they are almost always on the shelf. I was thinking maybe not this zoom?
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I do have a 300 PF and 500 PF, but since having the 600 f/4 they are almost always on the shelf. I was thinking maybe not this zoom?
Click to expand...
It's probably a case of subject matter - and using the lens you have. When I had my 500mm PF there were clear use cases for the 500mm PF vs. the 600mm f/4. I use my 300mm f/4 regularly for butterflies and dragonflies but almost nothing else.
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
I will be using my 600 mm most of the time for wildlife because of reach, but if I go to Yellowstone i.e. this lens on a second body might be great for bigger animals at closer distance and/or habitat/landscape images.
Click to expand...

I've found that, with both Canon and now Sony, the best combo is a 600 f4 with available 1.4X TC and a 100-400. Not sure how good the Nikon 100-400 is, but something in that range would be ideal.
 
Member's gallery
RikWriter said:
I've found that, with both Canon and now Sony, the best combo is a 600 f4 with available 1.4X TC and a 100-400. Not sure how good the Nikon 100-400 is, but something in that range would be ideal.
Click to expand...
He is shooting a D850 - superb camera, so the Z 100-400 (excellent lens!) won't work on an F mount body. That's the reason I suggested the F mount 80-400 AF-S (NOT the earlier versions).
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
He is shooting a D850 - superb camera, so the Z 100-400 (excellent lens!) won't work on an F mount body. That's the reason I suggested the F mount 80-400 AF-S (NOT the earlier versions).
Click to expand...
Yes - but the 80 - 400 is 4.5 - 5.6 and the 70 - 200 is 2.8
That is what I rather find more important?
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
Yes but for reach I have my 600mm and this would be my second…
Click to expand...

it sounds like you are trying to talk yourself into a lens purchase you don't particularly have a use for

if that's the case - no need to have us convince you! just buy it.

but as others have said, it will probably be too short in many situations, and a 100-400 or something closer would be a better pairing with your current 600mm.

I have been to Yellowstone over 20 times in the last decade, and I've never had a use for a 70-200. Sure there are some subjects where you -could- use one. The "boring" ones like bison, elk, maybe a pronghorn. but the vast majority will take all 600mm you have and more. bears, wolves, bobcat, etc. are all likely to be further away - and as soon as word gets out - rangers are going to be in the area and forcing you so far back the 70-200 wouldn't be useful.

the 70-200 is a lens I've owned multiple times, on multiple systems (Fuji, Canon, Nikon) and I always end up selling it because it sits on the shelf more often than not. I really have to force myself to use it, and why do that when I have a beast of a lens like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4?

my solution was to buy a significantly cheaper, lighter, and smaller Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8. it can't take the Nikon TC's, but it is faster than the 70-200, covers most of the same range - and allows you to get wider. I feel much better about $1K sitting on the shelf than $2K. and it can double as a Milky way, landscape, etc. lens.

YMMV and I'm not sure if they made a Tamron 35-150 for older systems. the 80-400 mentioned above may be a good option too, or a 120-300, etc.
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
Yes but for reach I have my 600mm and this would be my second…
Click to expand...
Which is why folks keep asking about your intended subjects. LOL! For me, 70-200 is too short for birds or even fairly good sized mammals. My 80-400mm was most often used between 200-400mm. And putting a 2X tele on the 70-200 puts you at f8 while using a questionable tele.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
it sounds like you are trying to talk yourself into a lens purchase you don't particularly have a use for

if that's the case - no need to have us convince you! just buy it.

but as others have said, it will probably be too short in many situations, and a 100-400 or something closer would be a better pairing with your current 600mm.

I have been to Yellowstone over 20 times in the last decade, and I've never had a use for a 70-200. Sure there are some subjects where you -could- use one. The "boring" ones like bison, elk, maybe a pronghorn. but the vast majority will take all 600mm you have and more. bears, wolves, bobcat, etc. are all likely to be further away - and as soon as word gets out - rangers are going to be in the area and forcing you so far back the 70-200 wouldn't be useful.

the 70-200 is a lens I've owned multiple times, on multiple systems (Fuji, Canon, Nikon) and I always end up selling it because it sits on the shelf more often than not. I really have to force myself to use it, and why do that when I have a beast of a lens like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4?

my solution was to buy a significantly cheaper, lighter, and smaller Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8. it can't take the Nikon TC's, but it is faster than the 70-200, covers most of the same range - and allows you to get wider. I feel much better about $1K sitting on the shelf than $2K. and it can double as a Milky way, landscape, etc. lens.

YMMV and I'm not sure if they made a Tamron 35-150 for older systems. the 80-400 mentioned above may be a good option too, or a 120-300, etc.
Click to expand...
Ok thank you very much everybody. That nails it for me. I will use what I have, I do not want another lens for the shelf, that is why I asked and I am glad I did 👍
 
Member's gallery
Interesting discussion. In the original post, Mike asked about the 70-200/2.8 as a second lens, but didn’t specify that it would be used for wildlife. Then in a follow up post, he discusses the 70-200 and Yellowstone. That’s a BIG clarification. My take is that the 70-200/2.8 is unquestionably a fantastic lens and I’m with Eric in that I seldom leave home without it. But - if I were buying a second lens to pair with a 600 in Yellowstone, I’m with Karen. My second lens would be the 80-400 (the 2nd version, not the original) since I would find the extra 200mm reach invaluable. I have the luxury of being able to bring both the 70-200 and the 80-400, but if I had to choose one, it’s the 80-400.

But - if I were purchasing a second lens not necessarily for wildlife, it’s the 70-200/2.8 for sure. It is easily the most frequently used lens i own for non wildlife shooting. And just to complicate it further, if I were purchasing a second lens to a 600, I would pick the 24-70/2.8 over the 70-200; far more flexibility, but certainly not for wildlife.

Btw - if you folks think the F mount 70-200/2.8 is great, wait until you try the z version. I have a Z8 and the Z lens is scary good. Never thought I’d see a zoom that surpasses the F mount 70-200 in image quality, but the Z is spectacular.
 
Member's gallery
MikeA said:
So since I am planning Yellowstone in the fall it probably will be my 600 f/4, my 300 f/4 PF with my 1.4 TC, my 14 - 24 wide angle and my 105 macro.
Click to expand...

I think that will be a great setup and you will be very happy with it.

In traveling to Yellowstone, my most used lenses have always been 600mm f4 (or now - the 400 F2.8 TC) and a wide angle like a 14-30. I know others that bring a zoom (100-400, 180-600) etc. but I've never felt the need for one. The "cool" wildlife is seldom close enough to be an issue for a prime, unless you go off hiking in the back country on your own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top