Excellent review. I’ve had this lens for over 8 year now and is one of my favourite. Fast, sharp and reliable and it produces amazing images on my D700 and D600. I don’t blame the sales person for recommending something else so he could take it!
I do a combination of motorsports and wildlife photography and this lens is almost always mounted on my camera. One thing I would like to add is that in my opinion this lens and the others in the trinity range do render colors better than other cheaper lenses, and much better than the Sigma and Tamron alternatives
I have owned this lens (and the 14-24, 24-70) since 2012 for professional freelance work. They are so sharp, reliable and durable that I never have to check if the shots are in focus. They are amazing.
Thank You for your review, I hae owned this lens for over ten years. It is no doubt the best lens I own fo several, and gets used at least 60% more than any other lenses I own.
I have used it on my Nikon D3s D610 & D850 with excellent results Portraits, Landscapes & Night High School actions photography. Action Sports at night settings at 135mm f2.8 shutter 1/650 to 1/1000 & iso of 6400 have given me excellent action shots!
I’m a little late in watching the review, but as someone who typically works a generation or two out of date, this is helpful. I’ve been running the 2.8 D 80-200 version of this lens without VR with a fair level of success at hitting focus while working intensive military events, but have been looking to upgrade for my next event. I don’t like that the E switched the focus and zoom rings on the 70/200. There’s advantages to spending $5-700 more, but not enough that my clients would care or notice. Thanks for this video, it helped to confirm that the capabilities are everything that I could ever realistically need when I’m already running a flagship body.
Thank you Joel! Still today this is one of my favourite lenses, and the reason why many of my primes have now gone back to mbp.com. I just really like it. It's not rational at all, I'm sure, but some lenses I just "click" with and others I don't. For me this is a keeper, even when it is a heavy beast.
Excellent review as always! I could not afford to buy this one, but I have the older cousin of this lens i.e. the screw drive Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D NIKKOR ED. For my casual work this works well. Will look forward one days to get hands on this one. :)
Ha-ha! Thank you Gary! Unfortunately most of my videos are more serious than entertaining, but I appreciate your feedback and hope you will follow the channel :-) All the best!
I just started watching you and I respect you views. I was looking at 70-200 and had seen over a dozen reviews including that of Ken wheeler, whom I respect as well, and they all said the new Tamron 70- 200 g2 bests the Nikon version and it is 1/2 the price so I went with the Tamron and I am very happy
Hi Derrick, glad to hear you are happy with your choice! I once had a Tamron APS-C lens and it was tack sharp, so they definitely know how to make a good lens!
I really like the way you presented this revieq. Although an angry person ( you know who i mean) trashed this lens, because of you review and aome other I respect, i bought one and i am very happy. Thank you.
Good to hear you like this lens! Even though I shoot a lot with mirrorless cameras, this lens is still one of my favourite ones. There is just something about the images it produces that I really like!
Thanks for sharing...yes I would love to have this lens but cost is outside of my budget...as a hobbyist I do have 70-300mm lens which I bought s/h and like the results on my D500 .thanks for your comments.. cheers 😀
I remember going through all this when I was getting mine. I wound up with the FL ED VR version . optically its the best flavor to date, but the cost was that the zoom and focus rings are switched compared to the the other lenses in the trinity series.
thank you for the video. glad you're happy with the lens. However, I think you overlooked the extent of the focus breathing. I read that when you're focusing on a close subject the effective FL actually becomes close to 135mm. Losing 65mm is a big deal. This actually means that for close portraits for example, the f4 version will actually give you a more out of focus background than this lens at f2.8. i was looking for a 70-200 and endes up getting the f4 version, because I needes something light for hiking.
Hi Anas, I think focus breathing relates to the angle of view and not the aperture. But of course annoying to get more of the background included when zooming in close. My video does illustrate that the focus breathing is significant and how important this is I leave up to the viewer. Apparently it is important to you. All the best!
@@frederikboving yes definitely has to do with angle of view. but the point i wanted to make is that at minimal focusing distance, because of the field of view the f4 version will have a more blurred background than the VRii at f2.8. As for me, I mostly shoot landscapes so I don't really care about focusing on close subjects. I chose the f4 version for it's weight primarily, and I got a pretty good deal at $575 ;p have a good day!
Typical a lens with almost no compromises regarding build. I also got the former version so the VR1 from 2003 for 250 euro. Only the rubbers are a little white but besides that almost mint. And this one delivers also on my D850.
Thank you Frederik, a really good video to watch. I am looking at this lens for wedding photography. I am in France. I am so torn between this at f2.8 and the f4 version - I am really stuck to know which one to go for. What would you suggest ?
Than you Alisonin - do you find this blog post useful? frederikboving.com/should-you-buy-a-fast-lens-or-not/ - I wrote it based on your question. Happy to discuss further!
@@frederikboving The blog post is superb - I have commented there too. Thank you so very much for taking the time to do this ! Its going to be the f2.8 (The Psychology paragraph did it!) ............ no 'blame the tools' excuses ;)
@@frederikboving I would love it if you kept a eye on what I do with it :) I am just waiting for a deposit for a wedding then I can stretch to buying one from the backmarket. Here's my RU-vid Channel - its not as grand as yours, its little - ru-vid.com
I love the image of the old boat hull. Unfortunately, there is a copy of this lens available at my local camera store, unfortunate because it is something more than $1100 and it is now competing with the vintage 20mm f2.8 for a fourth the money I've been watching there for a while. Oh well. Decisions, decisions.
So basically, get the 180 😉 Did u shoot it without the D4? Maybe on a body that doesn't produce such great images it might not look *quite* so good. Maybe a case of needing good gear to bring out the best of good gear? 🤔 I demand a follow up video!! Nice lamppost BTW 😎
Ha-ha! Yes, I have a thing for lampposts! When I was an audiophile we had a saying that a good amplifier could not make a bad loudspeaker sound good, but a good loudspeaker could make decent sound working with a bad amplifier. I have a feeling lenses are a bit the same - if the lens sends bad light to the sensor, then the sensor is dead in the water no matter how good it is. Just a hypothesis. But I think you have a point that it is the cooperation / combination of gear that gives the results - no chain is stronger than the weakest link. But this lens certainly is not a weak link!
@@bfs5113 Right. I know exactly what you mean. When I was an audiophile I had loudspeakers taller and heavier than myself, I had a pre-amplifier that I had built myself and an amplifier that consumed more power than a nuclear plant can deliver. As a student, my small flat was always warm for that reason :-D I learned back then that to a large extend there are 2 kind of people, those who enjoy the music, and those who enjoy the quality of the reproduction of the music. Audiophiles are often in the latter group, although most have a bit of both. Leisure sailors are a bit the same - either you love to sail, or you love to repair and re-build your boat. Some are out and about, others prefer the harbor. I am generalizing of course. I would imagine photographers also can be split into two groups, those that are technically interested and want to understand why they get the result they do, and others with a more artistic focus that are more interested in light, composition, storytelling, the color wheel and what it can do, etc. As with audiophiles, I guess there is a bit of both in most photographers, although most lean to either side. Tony and Chelsea Northrup are examples of one of each: Chelsea the creative, Tony the more engineering-ish type. But when you see them give critique of pictures, you understand for example that Tony also has an artistic view on things, so we are all a mixed bag I guess. I guess one of my reasons to love photography is exactly this clash of technical/practical skills and a more creative skillset, that when combined in the right way gives results that are simply astonishing. Provided of course you are visually oriented. I'm rambling here, hope some of it made sense. BFS - keep your comments coming, I enjoy every one of them.
Hi Bob, yes, short term however the D4. But I am planning a video about cleaning the sensor - I am so bad at it that I want to show how it is not done :-(
Really great video! Thoroughly enjoyed. I shoot with the 180 2.8D on my D800 and it's pretty much my "god lens", along with my 85 1.8G, BUT ive always had a soft spot for this zoom and keep getting itchy feet about selling those two lenses and getting one. Im a fashion designer and do a mixture of studio and outdoor work but i only have one body so it's a bit disconnecting when i keep having to switch lenses or plan to. I know that on the long end my 180 will outshine this almost every time, but I love the idea of having my whole focal range in one great bit of glass. Decisions decisions! Is this your favourite version of the 70-200? Have you tried the others? Im such a fan of the D range im also considering the 80-200. A tank of a thing but thats one of the reasons i love the 180. Bomb proof!
Hi Odellin, funny you mention both the 85mm 1.8G and the 180mm - I have had them both (actually had 2 different versions of the 180mm - AF and AIS), but I sold them all, simply because the CA was too bad! I love the 180mm prime range, and use it for landscape photography (!) but shooting in high contrast situations the CA simply annoyed me. Still have my 70-200 - heavy as a big stone when mounted on my D4, but a great combination of lens and camera. I really find that combo hard to beat!!!
It's funny you mention color science since I recently switched back to Lightroom after using Nikon's proprietary NX-D for a while. This software has the advantage that the RAW files will look exactly like the jpgs produced in camera, wheras Lightroom uses slightly different profiles. So unless you're using NX-D, when shooting RAW the whole color science discussion is somehow pointless since the colors are mainly produced by the RAW converter in use. For portraits I still use NX-D for this exact reason, for landscapes I prefer Lightoom, though.
Hi Tim! Thank you for sharing! Yes, the color science debate is a sensitive subject and if you want to start a agitated debate - just tell someone you don't like the colors of their camera! That is, as they say, a great conversation piece! But I get soooo many questions related to CS that I felt I had to address it in this review. Take care!
NX-D really brings out the micro contrast on my D80O files, the detail I get from my Raw files is so much better than in lightroom. I just don't like NX-D workspace, so I use Capture 1 - equally great handling of my Nikon raws and a ton better than light room, so much more detail. Its annoying as I think lightroom is hands down the nicest "place" to edit and archive, but its really lacking when it comes to processing my Nikon and Fuji raw files.
In my case, the sales person simply took my money when I asked are the 14-24 & 70-200 in stock. 😣 Do you know that there was an uproar when people discovered focus breathing with the version 1? But beggars cannot be choosers.
Hi BFS, yes fashion amongst photography nerds shifts: One day it is color science, the next micro contrast and a third focus breathing. What can you do? Go and shoot some pictures, I guess :-D
@@frederikboving Not much actually changed, but just gaining more experience to allow you to see and/or describe observations or findings distinctively (aka, lingo), instead of using some general terms. Take background blur, for instance. A 50 f/1.8 can be described as harsh, f/1.4 as smooth and f/1.2 as creamy. Yet, newbies often say 'I love bokeh', the bokeh is nice or WOW, etc. Do you remember that I often say how to kick the tires? Now, you are starting to know in details, what to look for when buying your next piece of gears. Unless you like to become a collector or a historian that can tell where that screw was manufactured and when. What's next will be wishing for specialized, unusual or boutique brand/items. Also at this stage, you have enough materials for a few good old days stories.
@@frederikboving well it works. I bought it used. There is some comment on line that it is a bit noisy. Not a huge difference from the 70-300 i used to have but definitely more noise. It is about 10 years old but in good condition.
@@toby-vt7nzok! Maybe it's because I shoot a lot with AF lenses where the clunky sounds when the AF is operating makes everything else sound soft and shallow 😂
Iv had this fl ed vr for a month , also older version vrii , i havnt used it yet ! But the vrii has a lot to live up to in terms of razor sharpness when cropped in several times,, the rest on the fl ed vr is sales garbage !
Northrop (Tony) test is very flawed. When we work with cameras, we don't attempt to identify the source of someone else's picture from low res samples prepared for a test by another person. We work with our equipment and edit our own files and we have to deal with all aspects of file preparation, so identifying color science is NOT the issue. Working with the camera files quality and specificity IS. AS SUCH, the way you process one type of file will be different than another, and so the entire issue with color science is a misnomer. What really matters is whether it is easier for a specific person to work with a file and whether they can achieve the final result with a minimum of effort.
@@frederikboving People's lack of critical thinking, mostly. Something so blatantly flawed shouldn't be allowed to simply propagate... wouldn't you agree? It's not your mention of it, specifically, but the fact that it is mentioned.
@@frederikboving The whole point is that the entire exercise of that famous video is in its self "normative"... it's trying to evaluate a completely subjective experience and give a definitive answer on that basis: since you can't distinguish the source files of someone else's work, color "science" isn't important... Well, if you set aside that "science" is a process that gives definitive results and camera maker's SUBJECTIVE treatment of color isn't "science" at all... you need to consider that what's important is the individual's process and ease or lack thereof when dealing with those files. Thus the logical conclusion is that "raw data" treatment is indeed important to individuals because it's different from one camera to the next because it already includes several layers of processing, and that might fit one person's workflow and taste better than another's. So, the premise of the test you mention as an excuse not to go into "color science" is indeed flawed. AND most importantly, it's a pet peeve of mine when people give definitive, and unscientific pronouncements in this space, which Tony tends to do.
