What’s the difference in these two

Messages
390
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hi folks

Looking to pick up a 70-200 2.8 for my Nikon D7200 but as I don’t have a massive budget I’m going to trade in something to offset the cost, I have seen two of these advertised but I’m not really sure what the difference is other than one is more expensiv. Can anyone advise, is it just a case of it being a newer model?




TIA

Scott
 
Messages
9,727
Edit My Images
No
Don't know a lot about Nikon lenses.......

But the expensive one as I read it has Fluorite element(s).....that AFAIK in common with Canon L series lenses (plus higher spec'ed construction) and they are the Premium lenses.
 
OP
sherbs79
Messages
390
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Don’t want the top of the range but If I can pay a bit more for something that’s worthwhile then I may look and raising a bit more cash
 
Messages
87
Name
lee
Edit My Images
Yes
the G lens is the older model, and well used, you get a really nice one on ebay or here maybe, for around £550, bought mine on here and it was mint.
the E lens is newer, did the homework myself when i was looking, can remember what i read but i do remember it saying a lot of people like the G series,
i very much doubt you will go far wrong with the G, mine takes spectacular photos.
plenty of info ont tinernet :)

lee
 
Messages
6,874
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
Beware The"e" version has electroic focus contacts some Nikon cameras it won't work on, you need to check first. The G version is ok works on a lens lever for auto focus
Apparently there is very little difference picture wise

I have the Nikon afs70-200mm f2.8 G lens and quite happy with it. Quite a heavy beast but balances well with my Nikon D810. very fast AF and locks on quite well depending if in active mode or normal mode. VR can also be turned off. No problem with lens creep and the lens does not lengthen it is all enclosed , so breathing issues avoided.

To be honest the " e" version is not worth the money unless you do video work then the auto focus clicking in/out can be picked up on the "G" with the built in microphone. Using an extrnl mike on a camera bracket avoids this anyway
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,874
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
You do realise the Nikon 70-200 lens is for FX (full frame) cameras. your nikon D7200 is a DX (crop sensor) camera so it won't be 70-200mm it will be more. leave you to look up how much more the crop factor is
link may help

 
Last edited:
Messages
7,193
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
For what use? For portraits, the 70-200/4 might be the best choice (minimal focus breathing, lighter, price). For low light portraits, the FL is better (less focus breathing). For general performance/budget the VRII lens is great, but it breathes hard (~ 135mm effective at 200mm & MFD).
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,358
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Beware The"e" version has electroic focus contacts some Nikon cameras it won't work on, you need to check first. The G version is ok works on a lens lever for auto focus
Aperture control, not focus.
 
Messages
618
Edit My Images
Yes
Determining what you are planning on shooting with these lenses will easily help you figure out which one to get....

The newest version, the FL is epic. Image quality, focus speed and lack of focus breathing make it one of the best 70-200 lenses ever made imo. The original G version is a great lens too, it's getting on a bit now, it wont focus as fast as the FL, image quality is very good, focus is quick and vr works well too.

If you don't need VR and are happy with slower focusing speed, then do consider the AF-D 80-200 2 touch - it's a great lens with very similar image quality and more affordable :) I would avoid the 80-200 AF-S lens as the focus motors can go out on these and these cannot be repaired any longer. There is still good availability of parts for the 70-200 VRi lens - however if you are considering keeping this a long time, it's worth noting it has been out of production for quite some time now, so don't be surprised if (when) Nikon stop supporting it parts wise.
 
Messages
3,528
Edit My Images
No
There are actually 3 version of the 70-200 f/2.8:

(1) G VR:


(2) G VR II:


(3) E FL VR:


The MPB links above are to (1) and (3). They don't have any stock of (2) today, but the price would be somewhere between the other two:


(1) is from the early digital era, when all the dSLRs were DX. It's full frame (they were still selling film cameras), but with a reputation for being optimised for DX (later lenses were better in the corners on FX).

(2) is optimised for FX and has various improvements, though more 'focus breathing' - I think this is the one Steven is referring to.

(3) is the current lens with FL glass and electronic aperture control (E), which is supported from the D3 and D300 onwards, so your D7200 is fine. It doesn't work with earlier dSLRs or any film cameras.

Ken Rockwell has a page summarising these and the earlier 80-200 lenses. He's very opinionated (so take his judgements with a large pinch of salt!) but it's a useful list:


I'd be careful about the 80-200 AF-S - the earliest AF-S lenses have a reputation for developing a squeaking motor issue that can signal eventual failure. The most recent 80-200 AF-D also has a bit of a design flaw, a fragile plastic focus mode selector that cracks quite easily. The older versions are single ring 'push pull' zoom designs with slow AF.
 
Messages
601
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
You can get the new (g2) Tamron 70-200 2.8 new for around £800. It’s had excellent reviews and it’s around the same price as the used Nikon G lens. I.e. a more modern lens, brand new for around the same price. It’s what I had settled on before I decided I couldn’t afford a 70-200 2.8 anyway! :ROFLMAO:
 
Messages
17,296
Edit My Images
No
As mentioned the G VR is the oldest 70-200mm f2.8 F-mount lens, and the FL ED is the newest. The G VRII sits in between and imo is a fabulous lens, built like a tank, spurred AF and renders beautifully. The only downside is focus breathing with close ups, so you get something more like a 180mm FOV.

The original VR is still a great lens, but does suffer vignetting on FF bodies, however as you have a crop body you won't notice the vignetting.

The FL ED is the best of the bunch optically but I personally don't think it's worth paying the extra for, certainly not over the VRII. Also they've swapped the focus and zoom rings round on the FL ED and I don't like it, too easy to 'knock' the focus ring when holding it.
 
OP
sherbs79
Messages
390
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions folks it’s very much appreciated, I’m aware I have a DX but plan on upgrading to FX at some point so would rather get an FX lens that I can keep
 
Messages
17,296
Edit My Images
No
Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions folks it’s very much appreciated, I’m aware I have a DX but plan on upgrading to FX at some point so would rather get an FX lens that I can keep
They're all FX lenses just that the original VR vignettes a bit on FF, bit it can easily be corrected in post. That being said some like a vignette anyway.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Thanks for all the feedback and suggestions folks it’s very much appreciated, I’m aware I have a DX but plan on upgrading to FX at some point so would rather get an FX lens that I can keep
TBH, if I were buying again I would probably go for the 70-200/4. With modern sensors and processing that 1 stop makes much less difference than it used to.
 
Messages
17,296
Edit My Images
No
TBH, if I were buying again I would probably go for the 70-200/4. With modern sensors and processing that 1 stop makes much less difference than it used to.
Depends if you like that extra subject isolation (y)
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I definitely tend to see more pop from the f2.8 versions tbh, but maybe it’s just in my head :)
When it comes to separation, a true(er) 200mm vs ~ 135mm makes a much bigger difference than 1 stop... but the f/2.8's are sharper with more contrast (better MTF). And the 70-200/2.8E is the best of both... I'm just really not sure it's worth the weight/cost.
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,296
Edit My Images
No
When it comes to separation, a true(er) 200mm vs ~ 135mm makes a much bigger difference than 1 stop... but the f/2.8's are sharper with more contrast (better MTF). And the 70-200/2.8E is the best of both... I'm just really not sure it's worth the weight/cost.
The weight is definitely an issue, the f2.8's aren't really a 'grab and go' lens. Price wise you could always go third party like the highly regarded Tamron.
 
Messages
1,416
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
I was going to suggest you try Grays of Westminster for VRII if MPB don't have it, 12 month guarantee on used as well. But you say you have a trade-in that has some bearing where you do your deal...

I swapped the VR to VRII, as the original was launched when all Nikon DSLRs were APS-C. At the moment I am in no need for the FL version as my 70-200 has been usurped by the 80-400 which is far more versatile..

Weightwise the 2.8 Nikkors are lightweight compared to the D-FA* Pentax (before anyone says it, it is NOT a Tamron in drag), I have VRII and D-FA*

If budget is an issue, I can make another suggestion the 70-300 VR, it might be a 1/3 of the price but quality-wise it is close to the 70-200s.
 
Messages
17,296
Edit My Images
No
If budget is an issue, I can make another suggestion the 70-300 VR, it might be a 1/3 of the price but quality-wise it is close to the 70-200s.
I'm not sure I agree tbh, neither in build or image quality. It's a nice lens, but some way of the 70-200mm f2.8's imo (y)
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
my 70-200 has been usurped by the 80-400 which is far more versatile..
I have that lens as well (latest 80-400G)... probably one of the worst lens purchases I've ever made. It's certainly versatile and quite usable, but the performance (speed/accuracy/sharpness) isn't much better than my 28-300 and the cost was exceedingly high.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,416
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
I have that lens as well (80-400G)... probably one of the worst lens purchases I've ever made. It's certainly versatile and quite usable, but the performance (speed/accuracy/sharpness) isn't much better than my 28-300 and the cost was exceedingly high.
I bought mine off here and it seemed to develop a fault, lots of money spent at Nikon and it's come back to me as a fully versatile lens; for me it's a great companion to the 24-120/4

I'm not sure I agree tbh, neither in build or image quality. It's a nice lens, but some way of the 70-200mm f2.8's imo (y)
When I was looking the reviews I read suggested it was performing pretty well for a £400 lens, especially at 200mm (it was close it was said at the time). I stumped up because overall the 70-200 ticked the right boxes, and bought the 300/4 D too.
 
Messages
7,193
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
The weight is definitely an issue, the f2.8's aren't really a 'grab and go' lens. Price wise you could always go third party like the highly regarded Tamron.
The Tamron is right there with the VRII (nothing matches the E lens)... but you can probably get a very lightly used VRII for less than a new Tamron. But the Tamron is compatible w/ the USB dock... if it's anything like the Sigma dock/optimization that could be quite worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
Top