Is it really worth it?

zutty

Senior Member
Right now the only long zoom I have is a Nikon 70-300 VR. It does very well for most apps I've used it on. I'm just wondering if I really need the venerable 70-200 2.8VR that everyone seems to have and love. The price is not within reach right now and I'm just wondering if it'll do anything that my other can't...Thanks.
 

Steve B

Senior Member
It's worth it but if you don't really need the extra stop look at the Nikon 70-200mm f/4 lens. If you do need the f/2.8 look at the Tamron version as well. Both lenses have gotten very good reviews.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I hate to use a car analogy, but it makes the most sense here since I'm comparing cars to cars, not to cameras.

Do you commute to work? Does your current car get you there safely and on time? Let's assume it's a Honda Accord. Would an Acura get you to work any more safely? Faster? Would it give you access to roads you can't get on now? How about the Acura NSX - same questions? Ferrari? Rolls? See, and now you have to worry about where you park it!!

If it covers the same ground then the only reason to replace what you have is for performance or failure. If you can't name the shortcomings of what you have right now by looking at your own work then chances are you don't need it.
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
Exactly what Steve said. I have both the 2.8 and 4 versions of the 70-200 range and they are both fantastic, with the only difference being the extra stop the 2.8 gives you. There might be some other subtle differences but if you want a great lens without the extra stop and the extra cost look at the 70-200 f4. I bought the 2.8 for the extra stop and the ability to keep the aperture pretty low when using a teleconverter which with the 2.8 it makes the lens a 5.6, if you use the same TC on the f4 it becomes a f8.
 
Last edited:

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I hate to use a car analogy, but it makes the most sense here since I'm comparing cars to cars, not to cameras.

Do you commute to work? Does your current car get you there safely and on time? Let's assume it's a Honda Accord. Would an Acura get you to work any more safely? Faster? Would it give you access to roads you can't get on now? How about the Acura NSX - same questions? Ferrari? Rolls? See, and now you have to worry about where you park it!!

If it covers the same ground then the only reason to replace what you have is for performance or failure. If you can't name the shortcomings of what you have right now by looking at your own work then chances are you don't need it.

Very well written Jake. But for a lot of us it is sometimes difficult to differentiate our wants from our needs. I know since I have more camera bodies than I have hands to use them.
 
With the low light capacity of the modern digital Nikons the 1 or 2 stop gain is not as needed today as it was a few years back. So instead of shooting at ISO 100 you shoot at ISO 400. Without extreme pixal peeping who can tell the difference. So unless you at printing extremely big photos you really don't need the extra stops.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Very well written Jake. But for a lot of us it is sometimes difficult to differentiate our wants from our needs. I know since I have more camera bodies than I have hands to use them.

You and me both, Marcel. The way I look at it, if you ask a group like us you're either looking for the truth or for justification. If it's the latter, nothing I say can change his mind, so I might as well be pragmatic and assume that he really wants to know if he could have a need. LOL
 

Browncoat

Senior Member
I just buy the f/2.8 glass just so I can snort at photogs who don't. :cool:

That's a tongue-in-cheek response, but there's a lot of truth to it. Some people buy the high end glass because of the GAS factor. Unless they're shooting professionally, most don't really need 2.8 glass. Some of my first paid gigs were doing MMA events, and the lighting was horrible. I needed that extra stop, because while my camera at the time (D300s) was great for sports, its low light performance was poor. Good lenses helped make up for that.

There's a pretty big price gap, so you have to determine if it's really worth it based on what you're shooting.
 

grandpaw

Senior Member
I don't know what some of you have been smokin when you say the only difference is one F stop but there is a huge difference in the quality of glass in each of them. I would like to add that, YES, I do own both of these lenses. If you do own both of these and think the only difference is one F stop then you really did waste a lot of money on the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 lens. Just my humble opinion. I might add that everyone does not need the F2.8 and other lenses will do just fine but there IS A DIFFERENCE other than one F stop.
 
Last edited:

Vincent

Senior Member
Just to do an other approach: try to rent or borrow from a friend to see what this lens does for you.
Also the second hand ones were the top in their time and did deliver very good pictures, they actually still do. Be careful with second hand, but many good things are out there.

The way you say it, it seems you do not need it, so do not break the bank on it.
 

zutty

Senior Member
OK guys, I get it. Y'all make good points and I know that after I got the 24-70 2.8 and the 14-24 2.8 I was thrilled with the quality both of the glass and of the improvement of my photos. I don't think the car analogy applies to me though. I drive a 1988 Camry wagon (book value $0-it don't go that far back)..Haha. So I have a car worth nothing that gets me and my 15k worth of photo gear to shoots. (it used to be drums, but I can't play anymore due to health issues). So, I guess when I've got the cash I'll spring for the glass...again!
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
How about some SxS comparison with raw data?

Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II on Nikon D800E versus Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED on Nikon D800E versus Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on Nikon D800E - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

The link above compares the 70-200 f2.8 VR vs the 70-200 f2.8 VRII vs. the 70-200 f4. Compared to the 70-300 VR, the 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 VRII are SLAUGHTERHOUSES!!! DXOmark score for the 70-300 VR is a 23, both the f2.8 VRII and the f4 VR rank in with a 31 (all as tested on the D800E), as shown in the link below:

Nikkor AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II on Nikon D800E versus Nikkor AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED on Nikon D800E versus Nikkor AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED on Nikon D800E - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

I LOVE websites that have already crunched the numbers!

Having said all that, I love my 70-300 VR, especially for the price I paid for it... but the other two, for the EXTRA price, crank out some high quality results!
 

STM

Senior Member
It seems redundant to me. 2/3 of the range of your longest lens would be covered by the shorter one. Is the extra stop worth it? It would mean for a brighter finder image and maybe better low light autofocus, but how many times would you shoot the thing wide open? The IQ is probably ok but you will be dealing limitation like coma, softer corner and lower contrast and higher flare levels. Does the 80-200 have ED glass? You will also see CA and fringing at wider apertures at the longer focal lengths
 

PapaST

Senior Member
You're in trouble zutty... this is what will end up happening. You will buy the 2.8 and as STM mentioned, you'll have redundancy in your glass. So you'll get rid of the 70-300 and you'll eventually yearn for more reach. You might entertain a teleconverter. But ultimately end up buying a Tamron 150-600 to cover your reach. ;)

That's my prediction.
 

Steve B

Senior Member
You're in trouble zutty... this is what will end up happening. You will buy the 2.8 and as STM mentioned, you'll have redundancy in your glass. So you'll get rid of the 70-300 and you'll eventually yearn for more reach. You might entertain a teleconverter. But ultimately end up buying a Tamron 150-600 to cover your reach. ;)

That's my prediction.

Hmm, sounds familiar. But I still have my 70-300mm (and I went with the f/4). ;)
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I don't know what some of you have been smokin when you say the only difference is one F stop but there is a huge difference in the quality of glass in each of them. I would like to add that, YES, I do own both of these lenses. If you do own both of these and think the only difference is one F stop then you really did waste a lot of money on the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 lens. Just my humble opinion. I might add that everyone does not need the F2.8 and other lenses will do just fine but there IS A DIFFERENCE other than one F stop.

I don't think I ever said that the only difference is a stop or 2. IQ is always a factor, but I would say that there are some photographers who could use all 3 lenses (70-300mm, 70-200mm f/4 & 70-200mm f/2.8) to take the same photo and not notice a difference between them. For this reason I mentioned that it's about seeing shortcomings in what you have now - whether by comparison to others with the same equipment, or going out and trying the other lens and seeing of there's a difference. The better lens will not automatically give you better pictures.
 

grandpaw

Senior Member
Reply to Jake's post.

I don't think I ever said that the only difference is a stop or 2
And I don't think I ever said you did.

IQ is always a factor, but I would say that there are some photographers who could use all 3 lenses (70-300mm, 70-200mm f/4 & 70-200mm f/2.8) to take the same photo and not notice a difference between them.
If you do own both of these and think the only difference is one F stop then you really did waste a lot of money on the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 lens. Aren't we saying the same thing.


whether by comparison to others with the same equipment, or going out and trying the other lens and seeing of there's a difference.
I might add that everyone does not need the F2.8 and other lenses will do just fine but there IS A DIFFERENCE other than one F stop.


The better lens will not automatically give you better pictures.
I totally agree with this statement. So many people think that if the get a camera or lens that is twice as expensive that their pictures will be twice as good and that is just not the case.

Jake, it looks to me like we are in agreement on everything to me!!!!







 
Last edited:

Krs_2007

Senior Member
Reply to Jake's post.

I don't think I ever said that the only difference is a stop or 2
And I don't think I ever said you did.

IQ is always a factor, but I would say that there are some photographers who could use all 3 lenses (70-300mm, 70-200mm f/4 & 70-200mm f/2.8) to take the same photo and not notice a difference between them.
If you do own both of these and think the only difference is one F stop then you really did waste a lot of money on the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 lens. Aren't we saying the same thing.


whether by comparison to others with the same equipment, or going out and trying the other lens and seeing of there's a difference.
I might add that everyone does not need the F2.8 and other lenses will do just fine but there IS A DIFFERENCE other than one F stop.


The better lens will not automatically give you better pictures.
I totally agree with this statement. So many people think that if the get a camera or lens that is twice as expensive that their pictures will be twice as good and that is just not the case.

Jake, it looks to me like we are in agreement on everything to me!!!!








This comment from above
If you do own both of these and think the only difference is one F stop then you really did waste a lot of money on the Nikon 70-200VR F2.8 lens. Aren't we saying the same thing.

Jeff,
Look at some of the comparisons between the f4 and f2.8 of the 70-200 and there are not a lot of differences and that was the point I was trying to make.

I wasn't even going to bring the 70-300 into my comments because there is no comparison between the 70-200's and 70-300.

So trying to understand the flow here as it seems to have gotten off course
 
Top