Review Nikon AF-s 70- 200mm f2.8 G11 lens

[realspeed]

Previously I had the Sigma version of this lens but it didn't have image stablisation (VR) on it. So very recently did a P/T exchange for this Nikon lens above . First thing I noticed it was a lot heavier than the Sigma but I prefer a heavy lens anyway. one can read up a lot about an item but until its hands on can one really see what it is all about.

This time I coupled it with my Nikon D800 and took it out for a test drive. Yes one can read all about focus speed etc etc but that does not say what it is like in the field.

I have to say the 70-200 mm is a fairly specific range to get the best out of it but will cope with different distances if pushed.
The VR is excellent and I don't have the steadiest of hands by any means and focus is rapid with no hunting. This lens is no toy and I had to develop a different shooting style to work with it. As I said it is a heavy lump to carry about all day and I did get a few nice comments from people passing by, you can't help but noticing it. What I would have liked to see is a longer collar foot it seems a bit short. What do like is the lens movement is inclosed, the length stays the same and no chance of the bellows affect to suck in dust in.


handheld and unedited (exif left to check)

Above is the distance I found it best at, but that is my opinion others may disagree.

So how does it compare with the Sigma version? I have to say my Sigma compared favourably against this Nikon lens and if on a tight budget the Sigma is well worth considering I hate to say but being honest. I did mention about weight and yes it is heavy and as long as the AF-s 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 G lens. Nit picking and yes the Nikon does come out on top but not by much. If I had the Sigma second edition with image stablisation then maybe I would have kept it and saved myself some money. Am I glad I did the P/t exchange? yes but for the reason I just gave.

I often read about the Holy trinity of Nikon lenses but now I think it is more the famous 4 that they should be known as. The 14-24mm the 24-70mm the 70-200mm and now
the 80-400mm. Unfortunately I don't have the 14-24 in my arsenal yet so have to make do with the 12-24 f1.4 DX lens on my D300.
Cost wise? yes a little over the top new compared with other 3rd party makes, but grey imports does bring the cost down if that is the road one wants to take.


length comparison

 

[snerkler]

I had the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS HSM (the latest one) and swapped it for the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII. In terms of IQ the sigma is very good, probably 90% as good as the Nikon (YMMV) but the difference in AF speed and accuracy is night and day for me, the Nikon excels in this area. I use the 70-200mm for sports so AF speed can be everything.

I've not tried the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC but people who have rate it better than the Sigma and only a fraction off the Nikon is terms of sharpness (although sharpness is not everything). AF speed is supposed to be decent, but still not as good as the Nikon.

 

[markyboy.1967]

I have the Holy Trinity and each one deserves it place even after the years have gone by. The famous 4 would need to include a 400f2.8 or maybe the 300f2.8. I do have hankering to try a few of the Sigma Art series as well.

 

[realspeed]

They are prime lenses so cannot be part of the famous four

 

[metroman]

I won £4000 on Dickinson's Real Deal 2 or 3 years ago and gave half to my wife and bought the 70-200 Mk2 with my share (had change over of course) it has been my go to lens since diversifying away from landscape. It is a heavy ol' lump but I never use the supplied foot, preferring screwing it to my monopod for stability and ease of use to rotate when shooting portrait format. I was in conversation with someone the other day and I stand by what I said that, IF it developed a fault or some other terrible mishap, I would sell a kidney to replace it. It just gives me the results I love and a flexibility of usage in fstops.