Best Nikon Lens for Sports 2023 in the US | There's One Clear Winner

Greatest lens - but beware, beware of focal length change!!!!

December 21, 2009

Speaking as a professional photographer - I have been using the original 70-200mm VR 2.8 for a while now and loved every moment of it. It doesn't matter how familiar I am with this lens, it still feels magical at times to be able to separate subject and background while pulling the background in as smooth bokeh. 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 announcement of this "new version", I pre-ordered it. While reading colleague Cliff Mautner's blog, I simply couldn't wait!! It finally arrived 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 down to 1/5th!! and consistently at 1/15th. (The best $2400 I've ever spent!!). 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 few days later on my last wedding of the year. To give you some background - I always use this lens during ceremonies and in churches while knowing my movements are limited. I usually capture journalistic ceremonial actions as well as the reactions at either end of the pews at about 10-20 feet distance to produce intimate images. Something struck me as odd this day. I initially felt the reach was somehow inadequate, especially at 200mm, but, knowing that I should just love this lens, I quickly attributed this to the large church I was shooting in. However, after reading some reviews and complaints, 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. 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. Use 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. I am well aware that there's going to be variations between lenses, but as for the same manufacturer and essentially the same lens, the difference is simply too great. I will wait for the New Canon 70-200mm which I doubt would have this issue (Update 4/24/10 - The new Canon 70-200mm IS II is simply amazing - without the Nikon magnification shrink issue). With the exception of a flimsier hood and the magnification shrink issue, this lens is overall slightly better in just about every other aspect than the Original (since the original is already a "CLASSIC", it's hard to do much better). Nonetheless, there's definitely improvements in color, vignette control, CA, distortion, and the VR is simply "incredible". Also, this lens is just a tiny bit shorter and it doesn't look like a "Bamboo" stick as 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. 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 130mm on the original!! And more unfortunate for me, I shoot most of my subjects within 30 feet distance. Here's the full comparison at under 30 feet distance(added 1/10/10) - I did the test personally using Manfrotto 190 CXPRO3 and a tape measure: New 70-200 VR II........Original 70-200 VR 4ft. 200mm.....................130mm 6ft. 200mm.....................150mm 10ft. 200mm.....................170mm 15ft. 200mm.....................175mm 20ft. 200mm.....................180mm 25ft. 200mm.....................180mm 30ft. 200mm.....................190mm (even at 30 feet, it's still not a 200mm comparing to the original) So picture this, if you are in a tight church 10 feet away from your subjects and crouched between a rock and a hard place, would you say that it's okay when you want to use a "200mm" lens for close-ups of a ring exchange(for instance) but realize that you only have a "170mm"?!! 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. Yes, 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 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. While capturing moments as it unfolds in a fraction of a second, this lens' focal length just isn't as effective 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 far as my personal applications specifically assigned to this lens, and perhaps to many others like me, it is 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, 1/15th, 1/30th, 1/40th, etc. Thanks - Sean Marshall Lin

Read full review

Verified Purchase

My new 35mm lens of choice...

September 23, 2014

I am a 35mm lens aficionado. Thirty-plus years of film shooting with Nikon SLRs and Leica rangefinder cameras has allowed me to explore many examples of this focal length in many generations from 1950s Leica models to that brand's more modern offerings, and the original f/2.8 Nikkor from the 1960s to the AIS version of the 35mm f/1.4 model. When I moved into Nikon auto focus in the late 1980s, the then new 35mm f/2.0 AF was the first lens that I bought for this new type of Nikon camera. That same lens (replaced several times) is what I have been using on my full frame D700 for several years now. I tried to use the 35mm f/1.4 AIS on the DSLR, but focus was hit-or-miss due to the screen which is less than optimal for manual focus, especially wide-open. So the little f/2.0 has been my go to 35mm lens for digital. I never had a complaint about the image quality of the 25 year old f/2.0 design. I'm sure that in some lab test, flaws can be measured, but when I come back and examine photos made in the real world, it was fine. FWIW, while I am aware of the 35mm f/1.4 AF-G Nikkor, it is too much of a jump in size, weight and cost to gain a stop of lens opening. I like prime lenses because of the size advantage over a high quality zoom, and I can be less obtrusive with a petite lens, so I never considered the f/1.4 for my needs. So, enter this new lens. I did buy the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED, with hopes of enjoying a more modern design, both optically and mechanically, over the f/2.0 lens. In a short statement, yes, I do like this new lens more than the older model. So I will compare this new lens to its closest Nikon alternative. Lens speed to me is pretty much a wash in actual use, as the variation from f/1.8 to f/2.0 is not dramatic enough to be a deal breaker, especially with a step-less shutter in aperture priority. More important is the question not of how fast the lens is, but can you actually use it at that aperture? The lens used at f/1.8 is more than usable, it is very good in terms of sharpness and contrast at full aperture. There is a very small amount of light fall-off, but it is only noticeable when you review two images shot at f/1.8 and then stopped down to about f/2.5 side by side. In comparison, the older f/2.0 lens was O.K. wide-open, but only in the center, with the edges not so good. In some situations this is not a problem, since when focusing centrally on a 3D subject in an environment, the edges would be lost to DOF anyway, but this is not good for flat subjects. The look from this new lens used wide-open is making me get a lot of use from my camera's 1/8000th of a second top shutter speed which allows me to isolate a subject from the background with a moderate wide angle look in good light. The physicality advantage of the two lenses would have to go to the older lens in terms of size. The f/2.0 with the proper HN-3 hood is much smaller than the f/1.8 lens with its hood mounted. However the weight is not an issue, and it didn't take long to ignore the larger size after a couple of decades with the smaller lens. The functionality advantage has to go to the newer model. It is so nice to be able to tweak focus instantly without having to find a switch and rotate it to manually adjust the focusing ring. Additionally, this same function means that I don't have to worry about keeping my fingers off of the focusing collar which I do with the f/2.0 model lest I prevent free movement of the mechanism. Without a way to scientifically measure, my feeling is that the older f/2.0 lens focused faster, but this might just be that I can hear and feel it as the screw-jack spins the collar very quickly and surely to the focus point. The new lens is silent and without any noticeable mechanical sensation. Even if the older lens is faster, the newer lens has never seemed slow, and I have caught some nice moving subject shots with it. So after many decades of use of the 35mm lens as my most used lens, the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ED is now my lens of choice. The only thing I can't review here is longevity. I stayed with Nikon because I have 24 lenses in my collection and 95% of them function as well as the day they came out of the box. If this lens lasts ten years, that 600 Dollars will have put thousands of images on my hard drive. FWIW 2, My older f/2.0 lens now sits on my D7100. It gives me a nice normal lens for the crop sensor camera, and the lower quality edges fall outside of the capture area of the DX sensor. Edited on Nov 6, 2014: After many weeks of use now, I am still very happy with the optical quality of this lens. I have however found a weak point in the design that may or may not be important to you. The focus scale is very compressed, and the DOF marks are limited to one aperture. This makes zone-focusing pretty much impossible which is a shame, since a zone focused 35mm lens is the classic street shooter's tool of choice. With my old film era lenses, I could set a zone of say, 4ft to 11ft between the two aperture marks for a moderate aperture and then simply move to put a subject within that zone and shoot from the hip. I have used this technique for many years with great success, but this past weekend I employed this new lens for this task, only to find it impossible with the limited information on the distance scale... infinity comes on very quickly from any moderate distance. I like prime lenses over zooms because of the ability to use zone and hyper-focus setting via the scales on the lens, and this lens does not allow for this classic street-shooter trick. As a a work-around, I focused at an object 6 feet from from me, and then turned off the auto-focus. I set an aperture of f/8 and tried to keep my subjects within 5 to 10 feet. This was O.K., but I busted the zone much more than I use to with my old classic Nikkors with comprehensive DOF scales and a more moderate distance shift.

Read full review