Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
Great lens but just as every lens Nikon made last 5 years it is way too expensive. I choose to wait for Sigmas and Tamrons new 70-200 zooms. Nikon is stuck in past where they had all aces up their sleeve. Now I found Sigmas 85, 35, 50 and 20mm way better and cheaper then Nikon so I really don’t see any reason for going with Nikon. I do understand that many older photographers are just not able to grasp the fact that third party manufacturers are just as good if not better nowadays and Nikons is milking those people for everything they can get.
Hi Red
I have to disagree with your conclusion that 3rd party is better in every way.
It is true that Sigma and Tamron specially have up’d there game and optically there are rarely reasons to go OEM.
But the moment it comes to AF speed and accuracy OEM lenses almost allways wins by a very significant margin.
…what I have experienced so far, the QA is much better with Nikon, than it is with Sigma and Tamron, even though Nasim seems to have had very bad luck this time with Nikon. I’ve had 3 out of 4 unusable Tamron lenses (2: 70-200 2.8 VC USD and 1: Tamron 35mm 1.8 VC) and one good and one bad Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. This far I haven’t had any issues with more than dozen Nikon lenses and from all my friends, only one had an issue with an 200-400 f4 VR2.
So sometimes I just want the peace of mind, that when I buy Nikon, I have a much better chance to get an okay copy + service and support of Nikon in Switzerland (where I live) is much betten than Sigmas and Tamrons.
Nasim, great review, thank you.
@Red, I absolutely agree with you, Nikon lenses are way too expensive. The new 70-200 broke a record in price increase. The new Tamron 70-200 G2 is an amazing lens. I do not have it personally but hope to have it soon. FStoppers and others did a comparison and ALL of them came to the conclusion that it is an amazing lens and.
In fact, it has a better VC (or VR) than Nikon’s 70-200.
Just so you know, all my lenses are Nikon. I have the old 80-200 f/2.8 and also the 180mm f/2.8. Both are great lenses and I especially love the 180mm, being so light. It is an amazing lens. However, thinking about it now, I MUCH rather spend $1,300 for the Tamron 70-200 than $1,000 on the 180mm. No competition there.
In the past three years, third party companies made a tremendous improvements to their line of products. If it’s Sigma with their ART line, Tamron with their zoom lenses or Godox for lighting system, those great products not only caught up with the brands but surpassed them (built in radio triggers, Li-on batteries etc.).
I am a Godox user for the past two years and although I have two Nikon flagship flashes, they almost always stay in my bag. Spending, in some cases, less than a third on similar product makes you think twice investing in the brand names.
Red, I agree, many photographers never even look beyond Nikon glass and as a result, they miss out a lot. At the same time, I do have a few friends who use Nikon glass exclusively. Their primary reason is resale value – Nikon glass always sells at much higher prices used than third party lens options. The second reason is focus reliability. While Nikon has not done much damage in the past, Canon is known to issue occasional firmware updates that might either disable AF or render it unreliable. While Sigma has issued firmware updates in the past to take care of such situations, people get a bit worried about the potential of losing reliability. Lastly, third party lenses do not get under the Nikon and Canon pro support programs. Many professionals do not buy third party lenses because of this alone…
This lens should be an absolute no brainer for me. I’m the bulls eye in the middle of Nikon’s target audience for this one. I shoot sports almost exclusively and a 70-200 is core to any serious sports kit. I have a D5 and I never venture outside of the Nikon lens ecosystem. I’ve owned the now-elderly, crop-senor optimized version of this lens for more than a decade. I was patiently waiting for this version to marry to my D5.
After having used one for a week in April, I just can’t pull the trigger.
While the focusing is ferociously fast and it appears sharp, the ring reversal and the price have at least significantly delayed my decision. I am not a particularly price-sensitive gear shopper. If I need it, I buy it. But the near $3,000 tag for this lens that takes a giant leap backwards from a handling/stability standpoint was just too much to take. Note to Nikon: There were only two things you could have done to keep me from buying this lens; radically overprice it and/or screw up the handling. I could have lived with one or the other. But not both.
Waiting for the new Sigma Art version ….
I will buy this lens this year, new ones can be bought cheaper. It is expensive lens, but if you buy it for a long time, it makes sense.
Nasim,
Thanks for the insepth review, it was great. Also, thanks for posting the stellar sample images from you and Spencer. If you didn’t have a 70-200, would you get this lens, or the Tamron’s SP 70-200mm f/2.8 VC G2?
Thanks.
Jason
I would :-)
Jason, that’s a tough question, since I have not tested the Tamron 70-200mm G2 yet (hopefully it will be here in a few weeks). Given the price difference, I would personally favor the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 at this point. If we were talking about several hundred dollars it would be one thing, but I could get two Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for the price of a single Nikkor…
Because of the price difference I although thought to by the new Tamron, but the Tamron doesn’t work with the Nikon TCs. So if you want to use TCs with this lens, then you have to spend extra money for Tamron TCs. That’s why in my case the Tamron had coast me even more then the Nikkor. I already have Nikon TCs for my big prime lens and had to buy another set of TCs for the Tamron. Like most things, nothing is black and white!
Here you can find some pictures including 100% crops with the TC-14E II.
www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbull…st154.html
and here with the TC-17E II
www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbull…st155.html
And a wildlife-shot with the TC-17E II
rosengarten.smugmug.com/
Regards
Stefan
Hello, I wanted to ask how you feel this lens does with TCs as in my opinion the vrii f2.8 model was rather dismal. Although the Tamron is an excellent lens, this and all the other models show way more focus breathing and I really like that you can get fairly close 1.1 meters and actually have close to 200 mm making a far larger subject on the Nikon. I do mainly wildlife etc. and like a larger subject. Does anyone have an opinion? Also in the review it was stated that with a TC 2ii the aperture would be f8 but I think it should be f5.6. Double the base f stop of 2.8. I am considering buying this lens and have a Nikon d500 and d850.
Thanks Nasim. Great to read the honest pros and cons of this new beast. What is the best way to test the QC on a potential purchase if one does not have the professional testing equipment available that a pro such as yourself has? …Hope you enjoyed your time in NZ!
Donz, you can easily test any lens by doing two types of shooting – one to test AF and one to test for any decentering or other optical issues. The first step is to test AF at close and medium range distances. Simply defocus the lens at maximum aperture, then focus on a subject that has a lot of contrast with phase detect AF (a test chart would be ideal for this). Take a shot and repeat the process until you have at least 5-6 shots that you can use. Then use live view to focus precisely on the same target. Compare the previous images with the one from live view. If the images look very similar and sharpness is there, you are set. If the images look drastically different, your lens is off and needs to be either calibrated, or returned for a good copy that does not have the same AF issues. If you want to test for focus shift, repeat the same process with the lens stopped down to something like f/5.6 or f/8.
Then do a similar test with focus set to infinity. Ideally, stand on top of a hill or a tall building and shoot all the details below – make sure that everything is far way enough that you have maximum depth of field. Frame the image so that you have details on all four corners of the frame. Set your lens to desired aperture that you are planning to use the most, then use live view for precise focusing. Once focus is set, scroll from side to side of the frame and make sure that all the edges look roughly the same – you do not want to have one edge that is blurry due to shallow depth of field. Take some shots and look at them at 100% view and explore all the edges of the frame. If a lens does not have a decentered element, all four corners should look roughly the same. If a lens does have a decentered element, you will see one side looking much blurrier than the other.
These two tests should suffice in selecting a good candidate. I always recommend to test lenses in real environments vs a lab environment like mine, since there are too many challenges to deal with and one must have the right equipment and software to conduct proper testing. It can get expensive very quickly…
Thanks for a thorough explanation – much appreciated! : )
Very helpful,indeed.
Thank you Nasin. His review was excellent as always. Congrats on the photos are great. What is missing now is a comparison with the new Tamron, but a serious comparison. In practice! Because it is very difficult for us, from poor countries to buy this lens. For months I have been with the Nikon 200-500 wanting to write a story about it, but my translator has not yet appeared. Success always! Sincerely.
@Andre, watch this vid www.youtube.com/watch…0Pb37PGa2E
He does a practical comparison using both in a sport shoot.
Thank you Motti. Great video. I stay with the Tamron.
Andre, I should have the Tamron with me in a couple of weeks for real testing. Will review the lens and update this one with comparisons as soon as possible. Thank you for your feedback my friend!
Thank You Nasim!
Hello, I wanted to ask how you feel this lens does with TCs as in my opinion the vrii f2.8 model was rather dismal. Although the Tamron is an excellent lens, this and all the other models show way more focus breathing and I really like that you can get fairly close 1.1 meters and actually have close to 200 mm making a far larger subject on the Nikon. I do mainly wildlife etc. and like a larger subject. Does anyone have an opinion? Also in the review it was stated that with a TC 2ii the aperture would be f8 but I think it should be f5.6. Double the base f stop of 2.8. I am considering buying this lens and have a Nikon d500 and d850.
What a great lens – and I was about to buy it as a replacement for my VR1 until I learned about the new position of the zoom ring. Thats a deal breaker for me.
I upgraded form the VR I and I would suggest to try it out. I like the new position much better and I hold the lens in the way that the tripod foot rest on my hand and two fingers in front to zoom. So for me this change is a benefit! The AF is so much faster, the sharpness is just incredible and although the VR is great. I although thought about the Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2, but it is not as uncompromising as the new Nikkor 70-200/2.8 FL. That why I spend the money for this great workhorse and I am very happy I did it!
Stefan, having shot with the 70-200mm f/2.8 for years shooting weddings, I cannot imagine trying to hold the tripod foot on my palm. With the weight of the lens, it would end up bruising my palm after many hours of shooting (and yes, I have used the lens this way when I first started out). I would not recommend to handle any 70-200mm f/2.8 lens with the tripod mount, that’s certainly not the way the lens is supposed to be hand-held…
I agree with you on all the positives of the new lens, but I cannot agree with you on the ergonomics. However, it is certainly a matter of personal preference – if hand-holding the lens with the tripod foot does not hurt your hands, then by all means go for it. You might want to perhaps accessorize the tripod foot with something soft, or get an oversized Arca-Swiss adapter to make it more comfortable to hold, especially when shooting for extended periods of time.
No problem! I think that is really an individual thing. I although hold my AF-S 500/4 FL in that way! So I get another anchor and can hold althougt that lens freehand to get very good resualts at shutter speeds of 1/15 sec, like this one naturfotografen-forum.de/o1289…20kommt%21
Agree with nasim holding it with tripod foot for long definitely hurts palm .you won’t notice it while shooting .
It hurts you, but that does not mean, that it althought hurts everyone. For exampel it doesn’t hurts me! So everyone has to try it out by himself.
Walter, that is certainly a huge inconvenience factor for me as well. I wish Nikon kept the lens the way it used to be.
Great review Nasim. Someone at dpreview forum and diglloyd.com suggested the lens has focus shift at 70mm and 200mm but almost none at 135mm. Is this your experience with your sample? D810 should have built in focus shift compensation that bias the focus forward when you select a stopped down shooting aperture.
ZZ, I did not see much focus shift at 135mm, so it is certainly true that the lens has the biggest problems at the shortest and longest ends of the range. Both lenses I tested had the same behavior in regards to focus shift, so I am sure the lens is designed that way.
As for focus shift compensation, it might certainly be the case for normal shooting via phase detection AF, but if you use live view to focus manually, it is a potential problem (for landscape, architecture and macro). One cannot focus at f/2.8, then switch to manual focusing and shoot at smaller apertures. Ideally, you will need to stop down to the right aperture in live view and then focus, which means that the camera you are shooting with had better have the ability to stop down in live view. When testing lenses, I focused at f/2.8 in live view, then switched off AF and stopped down the lens to smaller apertures – that resulted in huge differences in sharpness numbers. The correct methodology was to focus for each aperture separately in live view, which took forever to get done, because live view contrast detect is often not 100% accurate and I had to use a macro rail to make sure that focusing was good for each aperture and focal length. It took many hours of work, which sucked! I wish there was a way around the focus shift issue, since I see this problem on many lenses.
I found the focus shift to be negligible when focused beyond 15m at both 70mm and 200mm. Is that your experience? It is most obvious up close.
Very informative … and I love the images! They are wonderful.
Thank you Gunnar, I appreciate your feedback!
Thanks for the detailed and useful review, Nasim.
Great set of accompanying images as well.
I’m sure this lens will come down in price…..
Thank you for your feedback Swissblad! Hopefully the price of the lens comes down – the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR was also priced initially too high, but it did come down in price overtime…
I find this lens to be outstanding for Indoor Sports in poor lighting conditions. It’s fast on focus. I don’t have a problems with the focus buttons up front on the lens. If the tripod foot bothers you, take it off. Great lens!
Dear nasim thanks for the great review.
Actually i was waiting for your review before buying it but then in India i was getting it for around $2200 after rebate before may.
The lens is sharp fast and contrasty.
I haven’t required af fine tuning on my copy with my D800 but when i try to focus it at minimum distance(1.1m ) zoomed from 185mm to 200mm the focus is not achieved then I have to pull it back to focus it. The IQ at 135 is exceptional.
Great review as always Nasim,
Although a few people will receive this lens from their employer, or have such wealth that $2,800 isn’t an issue, I think many people would look at the market as follows:
70-200/4: same sharpness from F4, same VR, no focus breathing (NFB), 700g lighter. $1,000
70-200/2.8 VRii: same sharpness in the centre, very good VR. $1,500 second hand
70-200/2.8 VRi: almost same sharpness in the centre, ok VR, same weight, NFB. $1,000 second hand
80-200/2.8 AFS: same sharpness in the centre, NFB. $800 second hand
80-200/2.8D: almost same sharpness in the centre, same weight, NFB. $650 second hand
Considering the ergonomic disaster of reversing the zoom and focus rings, unless someone is buying the 70-200/E for you, or you are a portrait shooter who always uses a tripod, I would recommend the 70-200/4 for most people. Probably explains why Nikon took so long to release it.
On the other hand, I really hope Nikon release a 300/2.8 FL for the anniversary. A real weight saving (<2.4kg?) should be achievable with those front elements, making the legendary lens easily hand-holdable.
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for reviewing this lense. It is very helpful as I am in the market for a Nikon 70-200mm lense. I have enjoyed reading your articles over the years and sharing the same with my 9 year old who is into photography. My son is mostly interested in landscapes and some night photography.
In your other article, you seem to have high regard for Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/4G and opine that it fares better than Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/2.8G ED VR II in some areas. But I have not come across your take on Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2.
Not sure if I want to spend more and also don’t think he needs NIkon 70-200mm F/2.8 FL VR. Trying to decide between
– Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/4G
– Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/2.8G ED VR II
– Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2
1. At same price as Nikon AF-S 70-200mm F/4G, do you think this Tamron is a better option?
2. Where does this Nikon F/2.8 E FL VR stand vis a vis Tamron, considering the price?
Thanks,
Venu
Ideally you should go for Tamron G2 since it has better VC and image quality.But its heavy at 1485gms vs 850gms Nikon F4.
Hmm, I’ve been shooting hundreds of winter sports games and meets handheld for years with the foot resting in my palm. Often shooting a couple thousand shots over 3+ hours. I never understood why people moved the foot up top and can’t recall anyone that does.
You wedding shooters must be real sissies. ;-)
As a side note, you can use at least some of the cheap 3rd party feet made for the old VR on the new E version. The 2 I got off eBay attach firmly. The more gentle may want to tape some foam on it.
Great review, I shoot both Nikon and Canon, but personally, regarding the lens foot, I hold my the same way as Mr. Silverman does – by the collar. Don’t have an issue with it, either the Canon or the Nikon version and I shoot 3 or 4 hours at a time with them – but that’s just me. I would love to get the new Nikon lens (when I win the lottery). :)
I’m not a professional and shoot for pleasure. The 70-200 ED FL f2.8 was my first 70-200 lens.
Since I don’t have an extensive background in photography like many experienced folks who share their insights in this forum,
I have always wondered why companies cannot product a nice lens which provides corner to corner sharpness at an affordable
price even after 100 years of being in business. After using the lens the only thought that come to my mind is “Whats the big deal about this glass ?. This is because I have started with this lens and haven’t experienced what was available before. The second thought that comes to mind that its just a glass and doesn’t make great photos by itself. The third thought was that its heavy. Too heavy for a days use. Some samples available at www.vardhankalephotography.com
One more thing i noticed while using Nikon 70 200E Fl is when in hurry if you want to shoot just front cap removed and lens hood reversed its difficult to zoom in or out. One has to remove the hood put it on the lens and then zoom ring
I still think for what its worth, the very first 70 200 vr 2.8 is the best value. It gives tremendous performance at its used price with arguably the best bokeh of the three for a third of the money of this one. As for sharpness, its not as sharp as this one or the VR2 I guess, but its pretty darn sharp with excellent color rendition. I would buy the old one way before this one every day of the week including Sundays. What is Nikon thinking with this price? omg what is wrong with this company? overpriced to say the least.
I know it’s been awhile since your comment, but I completely agree. Beautiful bokeh, well built, excellent color. You can now find used copies for under $800, an absolute steal for the quality of the lens.
Nasim,
I noticed that the Imatest numbers for the Nikon 70-200 f2.8G in your Nikon 70-200 f2.8E review do not match the Imatest numbers for the Nikon 70-200 f2.8G in your Nikon 70-200 f4.0G review. Why is that?
Ron
Ronald, the numbers published on older reviews need to be updated – a couple of years ago I switched from RAW conversion in Lightroom to a completely different system using DCRaw, because some cameras were applying automatic corrections that I could not get rid of. That’s what resulted in the drastic change of Imatest numbers. The comparisons are still valid in the reviews themselves, but please do not try to compare numbers from newer reviews to older ones. I will be working on updating all old lens reviews as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the year should get all of them sorted out.
Nassim,
RE: Quality Control
I’ve just been able to pick up this lens (at a discount price of ~$2000) and have done the tests you have suggested, and am now concerned I may be having the same quality control problems that you have. The images are slightly softer in the left corner than the right – quite obviously at f2.8 and I can still see it at f8.0. I’ve posted corner cut out images in the forum at: photographylife.com/discu…00-2-8e-fl
Would you be able to tell me if this is what you experienced or if I’m being too picky? The lens also needs -15 in AF Fine tune and I think live view focussing still gives sharper images at f2.8. Should I exchange the lens? I have a very short time to decide as in Australia it is much more difficult to return/exchange.
Thanks for your help!
Hi Nassim,
This is a very valuable report, thank you a lot for you efforts!
However, it gave me some fear when you described problems with the two lens samples.
So the the question is: how often these very expensive lenses may have problems as described above ? Do you think what happened to you/what you discoverd was somehow exceptional ? Have you seen it on other lenses as well ?
And more practically: how an amateur like me should test the lens immediately after she/he buys it and before it gets too late to return it.
Any suggestions ?
Thanks for your help and your time
Wizjan
Wizjan, it is very normal to encounter good and bad lenses – that’s unfortunately the fact of life. Please see things to do after buying a new lens and also see how to buy used lenses for instructions on how to quickly test a lens for problems. I always recommend to test lenses as soon as you buy them, so that you can return / exchange if any problems arise.
Hello Nasim,
I really like reading your reviews. Really well done. I just noticed something. In the test of the Nikon 70-200 /f4 you made some comparison to the 70-200 VRII. The numbers differ a lot from the comparison diagrams in this review. I always thought the Imatest Scope are pretty consistent. But it seems that all the number of the “old” 70-200 VRII are now a lot worse then in the test of Feb 2013. Also the new 70-200mm is almost always “worse” performance wise in comparison to the 70-200 /F4.. Did you perhaps change something in the testing method?
Regards
Amadeus
Christian, please note that there was a change of testing methodology that I wrote about a while ago – I changed from Lightroom RAW to JPEG conversion, to DCRaw conversion, since some cameras and lenses were getting automatically corrected in Lightroom and skewing the test results. Please do not compare numbers from the recent reviews with some of the older reviews – I have not updated those yet and will hopefully do that later this year.
Great optics and VR come with disaster rings positioning for me… I only swapped with my 80-200mm f2.8D because of a good deal of paying ~US$1200 to fill the gap. The old lens was just lighter, slimmer and the ring positions were just good for my small palm. Maybe I should have kept my old lens and bought the 105e… or maybe not… as the 105e is bulky and heavy and lemon bokeh and not 77mm filters… Anyway life is going on and I have been using the 2.8e more often for the last 2 months at the long ends for a newborn because of its sharpness and low CA that my 135mm DC cannot deliver.
My Thoughts: I own three Tamron lenses, SP 24-70 2.8, SP 15-30 2.8, and the 150-600 5-6.3 G2. they’re fine pieces of glass. I know their limitations. I wanted to upgrade my Nikon 70-200 f4, which by the way was a fantastic lens. I purchased the Tamron from B&H earlier this year and it is a beautifully constructed lens but my first copy VC was quite noisy, a ratcheting ramping up and down upon activation and dis activation. AF was quite off, even with the Tap-In console adjustments. I sent it back for a replacement. My second copy I feel was even worse, front focusing so bad that that any adjustment did not render. I even sent it to Tamron and they insisted it was my camera. I received it back and had same results. Back to B&H, I ponied up the extra money for the Nikon and I swear it is the cat’s meow. Freakingly fast AF and Dead On at every focal length, f-stop, etc. No AF fine tuning at all. Colors are beautifully rendered, contrast , etc all just wonderful. Have absolutely NO regrets, except that Nikon just announced a two hundred price reduction and I’ve had my lens for two months now and they can not offer price matching. The VR II was about 2200 and this lens is 600 more….well I think it’s worth it over it’s predecessor. It is a lot of money I don’t know what to say …….I sold my 70-200 f4 and used some of my IRS refund money. I will have this lens the rest of my life….I hope….think I made the right choice. Thanks!
I have this lens . I’ve had it for about 6 months maybe and use it fairly often. Sometimes it seems to perform stellar and other times not so good. The picture quality is fantastic when I get keepers. Sometimes it hunts for focus in semi poor to great lighting conditions. I’ve even taken out my old afs-d Nikon 8-200 f/2.8 and it’ll lock focus when thisnew lens won’t. It is slower to focus but it locks on and stays for multiple moving shots . When this one won’t lock on . Also I seem to get blurry pictures many times at 1/160 of a second with the vr on. And not subject movement blur. This could be me shooting low light action and it’s my movement in the heat of the moment. Not sure on that one. I have gotten very carefully taken pictures where the pic is front focused . I tested this len on a tripod when I got it and the focus was spot on. But I only checked it at about 10-12 feet and at 200mm only.
And about the focus and zoom being flip flopped I didn’t think I’d mind. I have other lenses that way. And I always have the lens foot in and focus the way Nikon shows to. Well after using this long I wish it was back the original way.
Any suggestions on what I should do about the performance issues of the lens? I was going to go through and do a thorough testing. Then maybe send it in to Nikon.
I feel the same way regarding the performance of this lens. The keepers are great, but there seem to be an inordinate number of misses, too.
Have you noticed a problem with the blurry, out-of-focus areas in the background of your images looking like they’re split? It seems to happen at times with grass and branches, etc. It’s a very ugly effect.
I have never spent so much on a lens and I am really surprised to be dealing with such an issue with a $3,500 lens.
Below is a link to my thread on DPreview regarding the problem where you can see two images highlighting the background issues.
www.dpreview.com/forum…t/60839788
Nikon Loosing the 3D feel of the images in all new lenses :( , it worries me alot :)
Hi Nasim,
I have a D5500 and y take many sports photos generally in a swimming pool and y need a zoom 2.8 lenses because the lack of light, so in my purchased the lenses I’m interested is the 70-200mm f/2.8, but y need your advice for some dugouts y have; is this or the earlier VRII the best lenses for my photos? The D5500 can take the best of these lenses? Some times y need more zoom the lense Works well with teleconverter.
Most of the improvements in resolution are in the first 2 stops. I have a hard time spending close to $3k for some minor improvements in resolution when other great options exist – such as the Nikon 85mm f1.8 and the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm. I wanted this lens until I read your balanced test and testing across the f stops.
I have been working with Leica M for a while. I had a great time with this brand, but in terms of high ISO performance, environmental challenges (rain, snow, low temperatures), or in situations I needed longer focal lengths than 135mm, Leica wasn’t flexible enough. With a heavy heart I sold the complete Leica gear and decided to use Nikon over Canon. I got the D5 and i. a. the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL VR lens. As I was using Leica, I loved to work with the APO 90/2 Asph. lens. In many cases it was a state of the art 90 mm lens. Working now at the same focal length in a true life situation – not in laboratory/studio – with Nikon my subjective perception in case of optical quality equals to the old Leica lens. For me it is a very satisfying notice.
This is the only lens I got on my D750 where I shoot every thing from portrait to telephoto, not for client but for family and fiends before I get into real business. Sharpness is only comparable factor when compared to 24-120 f4 lens I would say it is heaps better. and there is no distortion of images as of now at any focal length. Key advantage is f2.8 with VR, for me it is huge advantage.
I recently purchased a Nikon D850 and could only afford one, professional-grade lens.
Upon reading this review, I decided to spend the money on this lens.
In some of my images, I’ve noticed a problem in the out-of-focus areas.
Where there are branches, grasses, and other long, thin objects, a splitting of the object (ghosting?) occurs. It is not due wind or haze. The subject in focus is perfectly sharp, but the background looks awful.
Have you noticed the problem? I would like to send two sample images for you to look at, if possible.
Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Nasim,
Here’s a link to those photographs, which I have posted in a thread at dpreview:
www.dpreview.com/forum…t/60839788
Hi Nasim,
This is a serious issue with the horrible bokeh rendered by this lens.
It causes a split or doubled bokeh of certain OOF objects such as grass and branches, etc.
Aperture, Focal length, VR, filters – none of these are the problem. It’s the lens.
PLEASE give us your feedback on this. I know you had two bad samples. I tried two samples and discovered (later, after looking more closely at my photos) this effect from BOTH of them after buying the second sample.
I am certainly not seeing the beautiful, creamy bokeh you described in your review.
Thank you
Paula, I responded to your email and I’m copy-pasting my reply to you in this discussion, in case someone else runs into the same issue.
“While I praised the lens, I was very unhappy about the samples I encountered, both of which had optical issues. I recommended that everyone test their samples before purchasing the lens, so that they don’t encounter the same problems. I don’t know what caused problems you have encountered with your sample, but the one I tested did not have any problems with background elements appearing twice in bokeh. I have plenty of images with defocused backgrounds and none of them have the issues you’ve highlighted, which means that it is most likely your particular sample that has an optical issue. This is something you need to take up with Nikon and please, do not blame me for Nikon’s QA problems. I warned everyone about this in my review (see the second paragraph on the Summary page) and if you did not do your due diligence, there is not much I can help you with.”
I do not want to sound harsh, that’s not my intent, but you saying “Shame on you” in your email is not something I am very happy to see either, as if I had anything to do with your lens sample, or Nikon’s QA issues. Please send your images to Nikon service center and have them look at the issues you are describing – perhaps they can address the problem by repairing your lens. I have taken over 1200 images with the two lens samples I had, and neither one of them had this double bokeh phenomenon.
Fantastic as usual
Thanks again for this great review.
Dear Nasim I wanna buy a portrait lens. Now I am stuck between 105 1.4 and this lens.
I want to have ultimate sharpness and near perfect bokeh. And also great resistance against environment variations.
My camera is D750.
Thanks in advance
Sajjad, go for Nikon 105mm f/1.4E and never look back. It is the best portrait lens you can buy today.
Thank you so much Nasim
Always the best reference!
I think Nasim is absolutely right. To get the same bokeh as 105mm f/1.4 with the 70-200E you have to use the longer focal length.
But as portrait photographers like Dani Diamond have pointed out you have to raise your voice considerably just to communicate with your talent/model when far away sufficiently to fit in your frame. You generally want to be between 85mm and 105mm for the best distance where you don’t have to shout you can collaborate with your talent/model at a friendly distance, in a friendly intimate tone.
If you had the choice among 85mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2, or 105mm f/1.4, sure go for the 105mm f/1.4 for just that extra bit of sharpness. Bonus: Sigma makes a 105mm f/1.4 as well so you can save some money.
AF-S 85mm f/1.4G’s reputation is that it’s pretty sharp, but it is not unusual for people to stop it down to f/1.6 in practical use. Dani Diamond for example stops it down to f/1.6 regularly. But 105mm f/1.4E is just that much sharper, so you can afford to use it wide open. Recent user reports are that the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 is also sharper than the 105/1.4E. Having lenses that are sharp out of the box means you get to enjoy the maximum amount of bokeh, shooting portraits wide open, without any reservation.
Dear Nasim,
Thank you very much for this amazing review. I loved reading through it even though I am not near as much as a professional when it comes to the technical side as you are. I have just placed an order for this lens after having read your review.
One questions came to mind, how can I (compared to you, almost a beginner user) test the lens immediately upon receipt for the issues that you ran into with your samples (the AF accuracy, etc.).
I would love to be able to test them as I will have a 14-day return policy only.
Thanks for any advice in advance.
Regards,
Andras
Dear Nasim, Great reviews and thanks for en lighting thousands of newbies like me. I am new to photography, has purchased Nikon D750 about 6-8 months back. I got a Nikkor 24-120mm f 4 as kit lens with body. Its a good lens, was looking for a nice 70-200mm f2.8 and stumbled up on the very Critical review about new 70-200mm f2.8 e-fl-vr. I am from India and getting the brand new lens at about $1900( present conversation rate of currency). Shall i make a switch over to this lens at this price point? I am not a pro who is going to earn from the lens, its totally the interest in photography, i am planning to purchase. Kindly advise as to what should i check in this particular lens before i buy it? I presently have one 85mm f1.8g and a kit lens as stated above, kindly suggest if any other lens(Othe than the one i am planning to purchase). Your reply is eagerly awaited.
Anyone use this for night time photography at sky?
I was wondering, if somebody owns, or used both sigma 135 art and the Nikon 70-200E FL? Although I sold my sigma 135, I was in love with it and now I’m considering the nikon 70-200 FL, would be important for me AF accuracy and speed, on my D750 I had to fine tune the sigma, but on +5 was perfect, if somebody has some experience regarding the nikon 70-200 FL, please share, thank you! I would also use with 1.4 TC, to replace the 70-300 AF-P FX, thank you!
Kind regards,
Dear Nasim,
Thank you for this great review.
I am looking for a 70-200 lens, the Nikon FL, the Tamron g2 or the new Sigma sport. I am a bit scared of the quality issues of the Nikon (after having had many quality (focus) issues with the Nikon af-s 80-400 myself)
Did you have the chance to test a new copy yet? Or maybe also the Tamron g2?
Thank you in advance
Linda
Dear Nasim,
Do you think the nikon 70-200 with tc 1.7 or 2 would perform better (sharpness, focus accuracy) than the 80-400?
Kind regards,
Linda
Since this article appeared on this site, has Nikon issued a new release of this lens?
Few days ago I changed my very used 10 years old 70-200 VR + $900 to this new lens. It’s amazing!
And, considering the price for which I bought it, I don’t care about the zoom ring at all =D
Hi Nassim,
Many thanks for the fantastic lens review. Your fairly called out Nikon’s QA issue which to me speaks of so much integrity and your readership cannot be grateful enough. I do hope the issue has since been resolved.
You kindly replied to one of the comments on how to test the AF reliability issues as well as the de-centering issue; I think having both of these within the body of the review would be appreciated by your readers (already found the de-centering article on PL and I’ll anxiously be checking my copy which I received yesterday!).
I do wonder: have you had much success procuring that 3rd lens copy and updating the article?
Hello Nasim
I love your reviews, thank you for that.
I want to ask: If I already have this lens( 70-200 FL) and have TC 1.7 II. Do you think it’s better to buy a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 VR 1, or to use what I have now with TC 1.4 III ?
My aim is to enter sports photography, either inside or outside.
Thank you