Nikon 70 200mm f 2 8G ED VR II AF S NIKKOR Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
This lens offers fast aperture, f/2.8 zoom features VR II image stabilization, ED glass and Nano Crystal Coat. It excels at low-light sports, fashion, portraits and more.
User Ratings and Reviews
5 Stars Excellent!!
I also owned the older version VR1 and this new 70-200mm VR2 has faster AF and better picture quality than the previous model. This is simply awesome and worth the buck……I like the lens because it is also shorter than the previous version…it won’t be much of a head turner when lugged around town as the previous model…….if money is not an issue…..get this lens….it’s worth every penny!!! Since this is new, this lens will be a keeper for a long long time….I am amazed at how the drifter gave one star to this outstanding lens…….if you look at the many 5 star rating on this lens…I wonder if the drifter got a bad copy of what?????? This is one heck of a lens period!!
5 Stars Incredible lens
Very sharp lens. The lens is tack sharp at 2.8. The copy of the VR1 I had tried (did not own that) was tack sharp stopped down 2 stops.
The VRII technology allows for sharp shots at up to 1/8 of a second which is incredible. Yes, I said sharp shots at 1/8 of a second. Just jaw droppingly good.
The build is outstanding and consistent with prior iterations of this lens. The bokeh is stunning.
Lots of discussion in forums online debate the effective focal length but that is really only an issue for a select group of photographers (see G Lo’s review for details of the issue if shooting at distances of <10').
For my needs, the incredible IQ, VR and fast autofocus more than make up for this alleged shortcoming. For the first week I had this lens, I spent so much time with it, my girlfriend actually got mad at me, and she is usually pretty supportive of my hobby. That gives you an idea of how much I love this lens. If it were legal, I would marry it. Just dont tell my gf I said that…
4 Stars Greatest lens but – beware, beware of focal length change!!!!
Speaking as professional photographer – I have been using the original 70-200mm VR 2.8 for a while now and loved every moment of it. It’s almost magical at times to use it to separate subject and background while magnifying the backdrop. As most pros will tell you, the 70-200mm VR 2.8 “is” the bread and butter wedding portrait lens and more. That was then. This is now – as soon as I saw the anouncement of this “new version”, I pre-ordered it. While reading our famous colleague Cliff Mautner’s review, I simply couldn’t wait for it’s arrival!! After it’s arrival early this month(12/2009), I did some quick in-home test and was extremely impressed!! Not to reiterate on the amazing optical quality, the new version VR allows me to get a sharp image at 1/5th!! (The best $2400 I’ve ever spent – I said to myself, since I’ll be shooting about 40 weddings in the coming year!) I packed up the original version and was getting ready to eBay it the following week!
I then took the lens for a real-world test drive a few days later on my last wedding of the year. I always use this lens during ceremonies and in churches while knowing my movements are limited. I usually try to capture journalistic ceremonial action as well as the reactions from the pews at about 10-20 feet distance or so to get some intimate images. Something struck me as odd this day. I initially felt the reach was inadequate, especially at 200mm, but, being partially in denial, I quickly attributed this to the large church I was shooting in. However, after reading some reviews, I reluctantly compared this new version to my original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and then the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED (as a second opinion) and found out that at 200mm, this lens indeed comes in shorter. It’s like a 65mm-155mm equivalent at about 7 feet distance comparing to the other two lenses. The original 70-200mm VR 2.8 and the 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 ED was about the same at 200mm which the latter zooms in just a tiny bit closer. I may post images on my blog in the near future. Unfortunately for those who doesn’t owned the original 70-200mm VR 2.8, it would be hard to compare. But if you have the original on hand, please try it for yourself. Put the camera body on a tripod and shoot a fix subject with all these lenses. It’s easy to compare the older and the newer versions, simply turn both to 200mm and shoot it. As for the 70-300, dial the ring to 200 and align the middle zero to the indicator dot on your focal ring, you should get a solid 200mm reading from your EXIF data. The difference should be obvious. If you don’t get the same results as I have, please leave me a comment and send me your images. I tested with my both D3 and D700. I am well aware that there’s going to be variations between lenses, but as from the same manufacturer, the differential here from essentially the “same” lens is simply too great for me to accept. So as for now, this lens is in my “return bin” because it simply isn’t a 70-200mm in short range and I’m so thankful that I haven’t eBayed the original.
(It breaks my heart to rate this “new version” 4 stars not because it’s performance and construction but simply because that it does not “replace” the lens that it’s “supposed to” replace. In other words, if Nikon has marketed this lens as a 65-155mm VR 2.8 then it’s undoubtedly a 5 star lens. Although I wouldn’t buy it if it were a 65mm-155mm, but it would be a great lens nonetheless!!)
Addition(12/28):
Perhaps I was a bit hasty in the above conclusion about the 65-155mm measurement. It’s not an absolute measurement. The focal length changes with the distance so the 65-155mm is a rough average while shooting within 30 feet. The closer you are to your subject, the worse it gets. For instance, at minimum focusing distance, the new 200mm is about the equivalent of 135mm on the original!! And more unfortunate for me, I shoot most of my subjects within 30 feet distance.
So picture this, if you are in a tight church 7 feet away from your subjects and crouched between a rock and a hard place, would you honestly tell me it’s okay that when you want to use a “200mm” lens for close-ups of a ring exchange(for instance) but realize that you only have a “155mm”?!! Sure you can crop, but that means you are going to lose 3-5 megapixels of resolution! This is exactly why I felt the reach was “inadequate” during my initial real-world test. If you move away far enough from your subject the effective focal length will eventually equate to the original but then again, it simply isn’t the same application anymore.
Some has also brought up the issue of magnification ratio (in comment, thanks to ATK!!) – everyone knows that one can get the same 1:1 ratio from a 50mm vs 60mm vs a 105mm etc.. But that’s not really the issue “here”. With macro applications, one can simply change the mag ratio/distance by moving a few inches to and fro the subject but with real human subjects, a few inches becomes a few feet!
Hence, if one normally use this lens at various distances within 30 feet, you will notice a huge change. The closer you get, the more severe it will be. Capturing moments as it unfolds in a fraction of a second, this lens’ focal length isn’t the same comparing to the original version. I love all my Nikons gears and this is perhaps the first real disappointment that I had to encounter for a while. (Perhaps another is the SB-900′s overheating problem.) This focal length issue may not be too serious to many people but as for my personal applications specifically assigned to this lens, and perhaps to many others, it could be proven quite irksome.
One last thing, to capture normal human movement(not fast action), 1/100th of a second is a good start. I usually opt between 1/80th -1/160th as minimum – depending of the speed of the movement. So for this application, the VR will only keep your lens steady but it will not stop action. You will undoubtedly get a motion blur at 1/10th or 1/15th.
5 Stars Love my Nikkor 70-200 VR II
I’ve had my 70-200 VR II for 2 weeks now and am in LOVE with it! I needed it for my 7 year old son’s basketball games 
I know, “need” may not be totally true, but since I plan on keeping this through my 4 children’s childhoods I believe it is money well spent! This lens has been an absolute joy to use, especially compared to the dark and noisy pictures that I got with the Nikkor 70-300 VR model that I had for a week before returning! This lens is WELL WORTH the extra money and extra weight! Since I shoot with a D90, I’m also glad that the reach is reduced on the close subjects as it helps avoid the need of switching to a wider angle lens when the action comes in a little closer. The only problem that I currently have with this lens is that I never want to put it down!
5 Stars Going on Safari, shooting plays or sporting event? Read on…
When I was younger, my SLR whet everywhere with me. I was an avid amateur photographer and have books and books of negatives and contact sheets. I travel a lot and grew tired of two things, viewing everything through a lens and lugging tons of glass and gear. So I decided it was time to become a tourist, loose the gear and got Contax G1. The lenses were awesome, I could still change them if I wanted to, but it was small(er) and quickly became a great travel companion. I knew it would be the last film camera I would ever own.
Last year, we decided to Safari in Africa. Now the G1 is nice, but I needed some serious glass and it was time to go digital so I started researching. Nikon just launched the Nikon D90 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) and it looked like a good choice for the money, and while not as good as Contax or Leica, I always liked the Nikon lenses so I started looking for a few good lenses to take with me. I still want to travel light, so 2 zooms were the answer.
Back in the day I became addicted to low light lenses. I LOVE the ability to shoot in low light without a flash and to control depth of field. My favorite SLR lens from was a 55 mm 1.4. At 4 or 5.6 it shot better looking photos than the slower lenses. Once I decided that I wanted f/2.8 and a zoom, I started looking at what lenses would go with my D90. I also make up my mind to spend more on lenses than on the body for two reasons. I could always upgrade the body and get more features, but the lenses I would keep for a long time. Also, the lens has more of an effect on the quality of the photo than the body.
I knew I would be shooting wildlife, so 300mm seemed to be the minimum I could get away with. More on that later. The FX lenses give you a 1.5x boost in focal length on a DX body. So the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S NIKKOR Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras actually works like a 105-300mm on my D90.
Before the trip I shot some shots around Park City and the results were stunning. I practiced on deer, elk, horses and even some landscape shots. I could not believe the quality at just about any focal length and f-stop. My biggest surprise came when my wife asked me to shoot a play the girls were in. I took my camera and armed with only a monopod, shot about 200 shots of the girls on stage with only available light. I know plays and shows look like there is a lot of light, but anyone who has attempted to shoot in that situation will tell you, there is simply not enough light. The detail and sharpness were stunning. Even shooting at f/2.8 the photos were clear and with and effective 300mm I could get very close. After my wife saw the photos, I was out of the dog house with the high price tag of the new camera outfit.
I needed one more wide angle zoom for snapshots so I got the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens and just for nostalgia i also picked up the 55 f1.4. I packed everything up into a Lowepro Fastpack 250 (Black) and set off for Africa. Read the blog at and view photos at View some Photos at: [...]
I shot about 4000 photos and while on Safari and either I am a better photographer now or a good camera can bring out the best in a person. Now I know people shoot photographs, not cameras – but I also know a musician will not use a beginner instrument to perform once they become proficient.
The photographs were excellent. The Vibration reduction came in handy and together with the wide aperture, allowed me to shoot clear photographs using a monopod or handheld. The color and detail were exceptional. I was able to get some wonderful shots of wildlife and the countryside. With one of the slower to focus lenses I would have missed about 20% of my shots.
The only negatives: The lens if heavy and long, so if you are not as concerned about quality you can get a DX lens for less money and save your back. But I wanted the versatility of f/2.8 and the sharpness of pro lens. I hiked tons of miles and do not regret having to carry this lens at all. It is expensive, but if you have the money, get the lens. If you decide like I have to upgrade to an FX format camera this lens will serve you well.
Here is my biggest recommendation, if you are going on Safari, 300mm is about the SHORTEST lens that will work. I found myself wanting more OFTEN. I would recommend going to 500mm if you are looking to shoot wildlife. The large game shots were good, but smaller game needed more, and if you are looking to shoot birds, I would say 500mm is the minimum. Who knew that Africa was so rich in bird life? I was not prepared and as such got very few good photographs of birds.
In summary, if you need to shoot sports or shows in available light, this is your lens. If you are looking for an excellent quality lens to shoot action or wildlife outside – this is your lens. If you are looking to shoot birds, go long – very long.
