Best Deals nikon 70 200 f2 8 g ed if af s vr

One Lens for Vacations, Portraits and Fun, April 27, 2008

By 

Stephen Green “VodkaPundit.com” (Colorado Springs, CO United States) – See all my reviews

  

I know what you’re thinking: Seventeen hundred bucks or more for a mere midrange zoom?

There is nothing “mere” about this zoom!

Wide open, Nikon’s new workhorse is sharper than most prime lenses. That’s right — I shoot all day long at f/2.8 (I like resulting blurry backgrounds) and never, never lack for sharpness. Being able to shoot f/2.8 at night doesn’t stink, either.

Colors are vibrant, the bokeh (out of focus areas) is creamy, and you’ll see ghosts and flares *only* when shooting straight into the sun. And I’ve never seen an autofocus do its thing so quickly or with such accuracy. I’m catching a lot of shots I used to miss.

No lens is perfect. This one has exactly three drawbacks.

1. It’s pretty darn big for a midrange, so sometimes I miss Nikon’s compact 18-200mm zoom. And that’s without the massive lens hood in place. Snapped on, a big lens gets even bigger.

2. The zoom ring is too close to the camera body. I’ve only been shooting with it for a few days, but I keep grabbing the manual focus ring by mistake. There’s a learning curve here, and I’m not yet over it.

3. It’s in short supply. Good luck finding this beast at the suggested retail price.

On my D300 however, it’s as perfect as a giant, expensive hunk of glass can get. It takes all my standard 77mm filters, and its DX-effective 35-105mm (approximate) zoom range makes it a great “walk around” lens. It goes wide enough for most landscape shots, and zeroes right in on my two-year-old’s face.

But mostly I can’t get over the sharpness, the color, and the responsiveness of the autofocus. I probably paid too much for mine, but it was worth every penny.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comments (8)

Outstanding quality, as expected, March 15, 2008

By 

Kyle Lanclos (California) – See all my reviews

  

The image quality from this lens is, as other reviews indicate, nothing short of spectacular. Having used its ancestor, the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8, I am not surprised in the least. Despite specifications to the contrary, the 24-70mm feels lighter in my hands than the 28-70mm did, and if it is possible, somewhat more responsive. Perhaps the weight distribution is more even in the 24-70mm than it was in the previous iteration.

After using this lens for a few weeks, two things did surprise me:

1. I don’t miss VR in the slightest. I was, to put it mildly, dismayed to find out that Nikon did not include VR in their latest evolution of their fixed-aperture standard zoom. I was, to put it mildly, pleased to see that I get proper exposures with 1/100s shutter speed or higher in all the situations where it matters to me. The configurable auto-ISO on the D300 is a life-saver in this respect; I expect this observation will only become more true as camera technology improves. I suspect Nikon planned this all along.

2. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5 is substantial. For the longest time, I kept using my trusty 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens, because I felt sure that I wouldn’t benefit very much from the extra 1/3 to 4/3 stops that the fixed f/2.8 lens has to offer. I was wrong.

I primarily use this lens indoors, and for basic portrait work. For these settings, it is exemplary; my only regret is that this lens may put my 50mm f/1.4 out of business. That would be a sad development.

Another area where this lens shines is quasi-macro work. With a reproduction ratio slightly better than 1:4, you get respectably close to small subjects, and have beautifully out-of-focus backgrounds at f/2.8 and 70mm. Shots of single flowers at close range against an interesting background, for example, turn out quite nicely.

I’m very much looking forward to using this lens for the next decade or two (or more). DX digital, FX digital, film– whatever your game is, if you need a lens that covers this range, I don’t think you will find any better than this for quite some time.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comment (1)

No need for prime, September 30, 2008

For those of you who are satisfied with your 18-200 VR. You don’t need this lens. I stuck with my f3.5-5.6 zoom for a long time because, heh, I took “good pictures”. I adapted to low light, didn’t miss f2.8. I was not convinced that a “pro” lens could make any difference visually…only if examining test shots of test patterns with a microscope.

I’ve been wrong before but this was a doozy. There is SUCH a HUGE visually noticable difference between shots made with this lens (and the 70-200 f2.8 VR) and my old stanby lenses that I about fell out of my office chair. My “good pictures” have become “great photographs”. I now own both this and the 70-200. I sold my favorite lens of all time, a 24 mm prime, on a website. I’ll never go back. You will get these two lenses from me when you pry them out of my cold dead fingers.

One more note. If you are like me and constantly read pro blogs and photo how-to books you will see most of the pros say something along the lines of “I don’t use mid range zooms, I use wide angle for landscaps and long telephoto for close ups”. I bought that for a while until I started looking closely at the metadata for photos they exhibit on their websites and books. Check it out, 6 times of 10, the lens is shown to be a 24-70 zoom. I use this lens almost exclusively for landscapes and lifestyle photos. I rarely go to a wider angle unless trying to make a visual “statement”. So, here’s one pro who says “I USE MID RANGE ZOOMS”, and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is usually the one on my D3 when I pick it up.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 

Was this review helpful to you? 

>Report abuse
| Permalink

 Comments (5)