p.2 #1 · What's The Consensus On F-Mount 70-200's?
Andre Labonte wrote:
Nikon 70-200 2.8 FL ED
Fantastic lens and sharp through and through. Fast focus. Love this lens. Even better close focus too!
Thanks for the detailed info. The more I read about this lens the more I think it might suit me the best. There are some who go as far as to claim that it rivals good primes at their equivalent focal lengths, which seems like the best compliment a zoom lens can get and justification for owning one. But I am also aware that the primary purpose for a lot of these reviews is to sell new gear or it's just other people with severe NAS who want others to play their games too, so I'm always leery of the sources.
p.2 #2 · What's The Consensus On F-Mount 70-200's?
jonshonda wrote:
Thanks for the detailed info. The more I read about this lens the more I think it might suit me the best. There are some who go as far as to claim that it rivals good primes at their equivalent focal lengths, which seems like the best compliment a zoom lens can get and justification for owning one. But I am also aware that the primary purpose for a lot of these reviews is to sell new gear or it's just other people with severe NAS who want others to play their games too, so I'm always leery of the sources.
For clarity on the E, Nikon's sale page for it explicitly mentions D3 and D700 compatibility. You should be fine there.
The E is obviously a great lens, but for the same budget (perhaps even less) I would also suggest considering the VRII for soccer and the f/4 for everything else. Or some similar combination. The 2.8's have smoother autofocus for sports and I do think they're worth it over the f/4 for that, but anywhere else you'd go? The f/4 sure was a gem to carry. It's not exactly small either, but it is substantially lighter and narrower.
Optically (and especially on a 12mp sensor), I wouldn't worry about the differences from the VRII onward. The VRII was fantastic on my Z8, and I used that up until the new version of the S lens came out this spring. I briefly had the original S lens as well. There are some differences, but at the end of the day, all the 70-200 f/2.8's are pretty damn good. I didn't stick with the original S lens for a few reasons, but I did miss the closer focusing so I added a $34 75-150 f/3.5 Series E for all the closer focusing stuff the VRII couldn't do.
Also, if you're at risk of doing down the film path, the G lenses would work on later autofocus film bodies.
Oct 15, 2026 at 12:09 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · What's The Consensus On F-Mount 70-200's?
jonshonda wrote:
Thanks for the detailed info. The more I read about this lens the more I think it might suit me the best. There are some who go as far as to claim that it rivals good primes at their equivalent focal lengths, which seems like the best compliment a zoom lens can get and justification for owning one. But I am also aware that the primary purpose for a lot of these reviews is to sell new gear or it's just other people with severe NAS who want others to play their games too, so I'm always leery of the sources.
ha ha, NAS, yes, must be leery of that. I think Thom Hogan is pretty straight with his reviews, he's not out to sell anything, just good information and high standards.
As for my 70-200 2.8 FL ED, the only lens I have that is sharper is my 300 f/2.8 VR ... it's a pretty fun lens.
