AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

Product Information

There is a distance scale sheltered behind a window, but there are no depth-of-field marks and no infrared focus index either. So, that’s just me. I love what 70-200mm affords me while shooting church ceremonies and reception toasts, but other than that I try to minimize its use; I grab my primes instead. The Canon 70-200mm Lenses As expected from a high-end professional lens, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II does not disappoint when it comes to sharpness. When compared to the previous generation Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR, it is not only sharper in the center, but also significantly superior in the mid-frame and the extreme corners. This lens performs so well at f/2.8, that you wouldn’t want to shoot it at larger apertures, unless you need to increase depth of field or improve corner sharpness. In fact, once I saw how good the shots were coming out at f/2.8, I just kept shooting wide open and really loving the results! Best of all, the lens has consistent sharpness across the board, from 70mm all the way to 200mm. Color and contrast have also been improved over the previous 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR, thanks to better coating and superior optical design. NIKON D3S + 70-200mm f/2.8 @ 155mm, ISO 200, 6sm f/11

It is fast and silent. Period. And it is so fast that I do not use the option to limit the AF range from 5 meters and out. Only if you are an extremely nerdy guy like me that likes to shoot lampposts at night will you sometimes experience the AF gives up in low light and you have to switch to manual, but for most normal uses the AF simply just works fast, silent and reliable. As you would expect from a pro grade lens. ConclusionMy advice to you is consider if alternatives with more reach or maybe some lighter primes. There are also alternatives in the same range from Sigma and Tamron – or the not so fast f/4 version from Nikon. Hmm...point taken, Sorry. The 18-55, 55-200, and 18-105 that are bundled with the consumer DX bodies are VR I, and are the least expensive zooms in Nikon's lineup. The 18-200, 16-85, 55-300, and 70-300 are VR II. What threw me off is that VR II started showing up on the metal-mount DX line BEFORE the 18-55, 55-200, and 18-105 came out - in the 16-85, 18-200, and 70-300. By the way, the MkII version is so highly regarded and so successful (high in demand) that it is unlikely to be upgraded for some years to come. So if you want to take pictures get one that is available now. Optics: 21 elements in 16 groups. 32 air/glass-surfaces provide a lot of opportunities for flares and ghosts. Nikon has applied their special Nano Crystal Coat on some elements. We’ll see how this works out in practice. The cross-section shows a lot of special elements: seven extra-low dispersion elements. [0] By the way, VC and OS mean that both of those lenses have stabilization, and USD and HSM are the new type of silent autofocus that is similar to Canon’s USM and Nikon’s SWM.

The new vibration reduction system in this lens is truly amazing! I loved my old 70-200mm, but it made me nervous to shoot it below 1/40-1/50th of a second. After I got the new 70-200mm VRII in my hands, I decided to see what I can get with this lens at much lower shutter speeds. Take a look at this shot: NIKON D700 @ 180mm, ISO 400, 1/13, f/2.8 Where the "II" does not refer to the type of VR employed in the lens, but rather, it refers to the entire lens as the second version (or MkII if you like) of this lens.The very first question I respond with is, what do you use your 70-200 for? Because in the case of both Nikon and Canon, the mk1 versions are good enough for many different kinds of work, while others will indeed “demand” that you upgrade to the mk2. The Nikon 70-200mm lenses Want the short version? Both of these lenses are killer, and a great investment. Their closest name-brand competition would actually be the mk2 versions from either Canon or Nikon. Considering that they cost about as much as a used mk1 version, that is quite a temptation! The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 situation is a little different. Their older f/2.8 L lenses (both IS and non-IS) were never really amazingly sharp, they were mostly just “usable”. Yes, of course innumerable pros loved these lenses and used them daily to make tons of money. However that doesn’t mean they were flawlessly sharp. They were simply the only option, and they got the job done.