70 - 200 f/2.8?

[john1970]

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.

As a second lens I might consider a 100-400 mm more useful than a 70-200 mm lens. Of course, this depends on your application. For curtsied sports like volleyball I found a 24-70 mm f2.8 and a 70-200 mm f2.8 a great combination. The 600 mm f4 lens by any brand is a phenomenal lens.

Is this for wildlife photography? I might also consider the Nikon 180-600 mm lens as well. Just some random thoughts.

 

[RikWriter]

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?

The times that maximum aperture has been more important than focal length for my wildlife shooting are few and far between. Not to say they don't exist, but if I had to pick between the two, I'd go for the length, at least up to a certain point. I wouldn't be that interested in something like the 800mm f11 that Canon offers, for example, but 5.6-6.3 is a perfectly acceptable aperture for most circumstances.

 

[MartyD]

The 70-200 E FL was one of my most used lenses until I replaced it with the Z 70-200 f2.8 which is now my most used lens, but not necessarily for wildlife. It is a great focal length for many things and I believe all versions of the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 were great performers. It will depend a lot on how you intend to use it, with the 600 f4 on one body it might be nice to have the 70-200 on another. The combination would certainly give you different photo perspectives.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

I photograph in the Alps, mostly mammals, the 70-200 stays at home only if I have the 120-300 with me.
On most outings I carry 400 and 70-200, the latter combined with the Tc14 and Tc17 still has excellent quality.
I prefer to put animals in their environment rather than take portraits, if it happens I do those as well, but they are not what I am looking for, so I consider the 70-200 an excellent choice.
The "flaw" of the 120-300, besides the cost, is the weight, which combined with a 400/600 mm makes over 7 kg of lenses alone

 

[MikeA]

I photograph in the Alps, mostly mammals, the 70-200 stays at home only if I have the 120-300 with me.
On most outings I carry 400 and 70-200, the latter combined with the Tc14 and Tc17 still has excellent quality.
I prefer to put animals in their environment rather than take portraits, if it happens I do those as well, but they are not what I am looking for, so I consider the 70-200 an excellent choice.
The "flaw" of the 120-300, besides the cost, is the weight, which combined with a 400/600 mm makes over 7 kg of lenses alone

That is why I was thinking of the 70 - 200, putting animals in their environment as an add on to my 600 f/4 for close-ups.

 

[dabhand16]

I'm not a wildlife photographer and I had an 80-200 f2.8 ED for many years and I loved it. It eventually developed the AF squeak and now that spares are scarce only limited support is available, certainly in the UK. So when I got my Z6ii and the Z70-200 f2.8 was way over my budget I got a used AF-S 70-200 F2.8 E FL for a song and I'm very happy with it. It is faster to focus than the 80-200 (as you would expect) and really sharp. One of my go-to lenses for studio work and portraits.

As others have said, everyone's lens needs vary depending on what you shoot and only you can answer the question.

 

[Kjellis]

I had the Z 70-200/2.8 and it didn’t get much use. When the Z 100-400 came out I bought this and sold the 70-200. The 100-400 compliments my 600 F4 so much better, for my kind of shooting that is

 

[RikWriter]

That is why I was thinking of the 70 - 200, putting animals in their environment as an add on to my 600 f/4 for close-ups.

It'll work for certain animals but I honestly think it won't get as much use as you hope unless you wind up putting a 2X TC on it. 3-400 is the magic spot for even the closer wildlife in Yellowstone.

 

[wotan1]

I have he Z mount 70-200mm f2.8 and it is a truly remarkable lens. The Z mount version works well with tc's so you can get effective coverage up to 400mm, although there are sharper lenses at 400mm. Of course adding a tc narrows aperture.

The problem generally with pursuing wide apertures is that lens prices (used or new) go up drastically as the focal length increases.

Recently I went on a photo shoot at a zoo where I found myself needing less reach than I usually need in the field. I worked that venue with the 70-200mm and the Z 400mm f4.5. That combination worked really well.

 

[janzin]

I would never go on safari without my 70-200FL E--just try shooting an elephant (or herd of elephants!) or even a giraffe without one And actually it's one of my most used lenses in Africa, usually paired with the 500F4 E. I've still not upgraded to the Z version as I find my FL E version is just so good, I'd rather put the money elsewhere (probably towards the 600PF fairly soon.) But as others have noted, it depends on what--and where--you are planning to shoot.

 

[ButlerKid]

I would never go on safari without my 70-200FL E--just try shooting an elephant (or herd of elephants!) or even a giraffe without one And actually it's one of my most used lenses in Africa, usually paired with the 500F4 E. I've still not upgraded to the Z version as I find my FL E version is just so good, I'd rather put the money elsewhere (probably towards the 600PF fairly soon.) But as others have noted, it depends on what--and where--you are planning to shoot.

You are correct about needing a short tele......and the 70-200 covers the shorter part of the range between it and the 600mm.

I seldom go to Kruger-like locations where the animals are habituated to humans and never went on tours where the guides got really close to the animals instead of staying back at a respectful distance. I found the 80-400 AF-S perfect for my needs. . No tele needed (in fact it doesn't handle a tele well), but it provides very good IQ and doesn't leave a big gap between it and the 600mm.

It's nice we photographers have so many really good options these days depending on our needs!

 

[MikeA]

I am going into pension in June - so finally much more time to be in the field and really use my equipment, I just can’t wait. I know now, if I buy another lens, this one is very high on my wish list. Thank you everybody for you valuable insights and as always, there is no silver bullet.

 

[DRwyoming]

I am going into pension in June - so finally much more time to be in the field and really use my equipment, I just can’t wait. I know now, if I buy another lens, this one is very high on my wish list. Thank you everybody for you valuable insights and as always, there is no silver bullet.

FWIW, I've had many versions of Nikon's 70-200mm (and the 80-200mm f/2.8 before that) and they're really great lenses. The caveat is that for wildlife my main uses are fairly large animals up close or figures on a landscape type wildlife shots. That said that focal length range can be very handy for many uses including: portraits, mid range landscape shots, some field sports work and lot's of other things though for pure wildlife work mine have never gotten that much use.

 

[MrFotoFool]

A 70-200 f2.8 has long been my favorite lens. I have owned the older (black) then newer (white) Canon versions for SLR and when I switched to Nikon D850 I owned the E version you are looking at. I recently sold my NIkon SLR gear for Z8 and the first lens I bought with it was the Z 70-200 f2.8 . My Nikon E was used often with the TC14 iii teleconverter and it was stellar with that as well (making a 280mm f4 lens). I use it for closeup and low light wildlife as well as landscape. I even used it for architecture recently in Segovia, Spain. I don't photogaph people, but if you do it is a staple for portrait photographers.

 

[TXSnap1]

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.

Mike, you described my purchase to a T. At Yellowstone, I needed the 600. But at Glacier, the 70-200 worked great. Great lens but just not as needed as my 28-70 or the 600 zoom.

 

[sh1209]

I think the 70-2002.8 is a fantastic lens for many things. My Sony GMii is every bit as sharp as a prime and most are lightweight now.

 

[Flemming Morgan]

For safaris in Africa it’s one of my most used lenses (Sony version) absolutely tack sharp and great in low light

 

[joe43]

I also recommend and use a 70-200mm lens. The one I use is the Nikon 70-200mm f4 G VR lens., an F mount lens. It is much smaller and lighter than the f2.8 version. If you want to buy it, look for it used as I do not think Nikon is making any more copies of it.

Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR Review

photographylife.com

 

[fcotterill]

I would never go on safari without my 70-200FL E--just try shooting an elephant (or herd of elephants!) or even a giraffe without one And actually it's one of my most used lenses in Africa, usually paired with the 500F4 E. I've still not upgraded to the Z version as I find my FL E version is just so good, I'd rather put the money elsewhere (probably towards the 600PF fairly soon.) But as others have noted, it depends on what--and where--you are planning to shoot.

My experiences are similar. The 70-200 E FL takes a TC14 III very well, but mediocre with the TC2 III. One often encounters opportunities for Animalscapes, which can need the flexibility of 70-150mm framing (and sometimes I need the 24-120 f4S).

I use mine alongside the 180-400 f4E TC14 and a 800. Nikon has perfected these modern 70-200 'Fast Dragons" through several iterations, since their first versions were released decades ago.

 

[macwalter]

I have the 70-200mm z f2.8. It’s an excellent lens that I mainly use in low light for things I can get close to like humming birds and insects. I don’t use it often as I mainly use the 400 f4.5. For the d 850. I used the 300and 500pf. I have never owned the big glass. I had the 80-400 but it chattered horribly and was not usuable even after spending 400 dollars to try to make it work right. I sold it for a song. I am looking at the 600pf and may let the 70-200 go as I have the 100-400z as well. A most excellent lens. I have made my choice to go full mirrorless and don’t regret the decision.

 

[sinewsworn]

I have the Z9/Z8 and the Z105 MC, Z70-200, Z100-400, and 600 pF. Covers all contingencies for me. Selling all of my F-mount gear.

 

[O]

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.

100% the 70-200 FL is spectacular and the best 70-200 Nikon has ever made and its the hand in glove fit for the spectacular D850, or even the Z9 Z8 D6 D5 what ever.

I use my 70-200 fl at F2.8 90% of the time, like i do my 300 2.8 VR II, i rent a 600 F4 FL from time to time as needed as i don't have a high demand for that focal length all the time,

i use my 200-500 Push Pull version that delivers what i need on the D850 Z9 Z8 D6.

The 70-200 FL is light and currently cheap used.

Seriously the 70-200 FL is superb you wont regret it, if you love your 600 F4 FL you are going to go nuts over the 70-200 FL.

I have the D850 i wont sell, the Z8 as an interim camera, just sold the Z9 very recently.

 

[John Navitsky]

100% the 70-200 FL is spectacular and the best 70-200 Nikon has ever made

2nd best

 

[MikeA]

100% the 70-200 FL is spectacular and the best 70-200 Nikon has ever made and its the hand in glove fit for the spectacular D850, or even the Z9 Z8 D6 D5 what ever.

I use my 70-200 fl at F2.8 90% of the time, like i do my 300 2.8 VR II, i rent a 600 F4 FL from time to time as needed as i don't have a high demand for that focal length all the time,

i use my 200-500 Push Pull version that delivers what i need on the D850 Z9 Z8 D6.

The 70-200 FL is light and currently cheap used.

Seriously the 70-200 FL is superb you wont regret it, if you love your 600 F4 FL you are going to go nuts over the 70-200 FL.

I have the D850 i wont sell, the Z8 as an interim camera, just sold the Z9 very recently.

Thank you, sounds great and I think I will go for it. I just saw a guy on youtube using it for jaw dropping landscape too.

 

[O]

Thank you, sounds great and I think I will go for it. I just saw a guy on youtube using it for jaw dropping landscape too.

I use it for everything landscape, portraiture, sports action, close up work, BIF be it the D850 with a grip the Z9 Z8 even the D6, its sharp corner to corner even at F2.8, micro detail micro contrast is superb.