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

State of the Art lens that works well with all of Nikon's tele-converters

December 24, 2016

As a former owner of Nikon’s 70-200f2.8 VRII, I well knew the positive and negative characteristics of this iconic lens. In 2013 I sold this lens in favor of the f4 model. The smaller, lighter and less costly Nikon 70-200f4, exceeded its big brother in every way except for maximum aperture. I felt I could live with F4 until I saw the specs and read the reviews of the newest offering from Nikon, the 70-200 f2.8E FL ED VR. Nikon’s claims for this were phenomenal. Not only did they seem to fix what we all disliked about its predecessor, but added several other improvements as well. So numerous were these improvements, I decided to make a list. I came up with 20 items! (1) closer focus, (2) minimal focus breathing, (3) better contrast, (4) less flare, (5) less weight, (6) better front to rear weight balance, (7) much shorter in the middle of the zoom range of 135mm, (8) sharper in the corners at all focal lengths, (9) Improved rock steady VR, (10) “sport” mode option on VR, (11) faster VR response times, (12) faster focusing, (13) four new memory buttons, (14) better bokeh, (15) better lens hood that allows for standing the lens on end, (16) electronic aperture, (17) metal filter threads, (18) better dust seals, (19) fluorite coatings on front and rear, (20) better with the TC-14EII, TC-17E11, and the TC-20EIII??????? Most all these claims have been verified in various reviews except for the tele-converter claim. And that is an important requirement for me. I do nature photography with an emphasis on birds. I own all three of Nikon’s tele-converters. These work extremely well on my Nikon 400mmf2.8 as one would expect. They also work well on my Nikon 300mmf4PF and decently on my Nikon 70-200F4. They were a mixed bag on the Nikon 70-200f2.8 VRII previously owned. When the new 70-200 lens arrived last week, I quickly set up some tests to see if, indeed, the newest version would not have the problems the older model did. I am very happy to report that all three tele-converters work very well with this newest offering. On my D500, this lens equaled or outperformed the following lenses at all possible focal combinations from 70 to 400mm. My tests were of distant steep wooded hills, and involved the following combinations: Nikon 300mmPF with and without all three tele-converters (this lens was slightly sharper when no tele-converter was attached) Nikon 80-400 f4.5,5.6 - A close second at longer focal lengths, equal at shorter focal lengths. Sigma 150-600 Contemporary - Same story as the Nikon 80-400 Nikon 70-400f4 with and without tele-converters - just ever so slightly less sharp over longer focal lengths. The newest 70-200f2.8E with and without tele-converters - equal or better than any of the above combinations with the exception of the 300mmf4 PF when no tele-converter was attached. What is really amazing is how all close all the above were in overall image quality. However, they do represent some of the best glass out there. Last but in no way the least: Nikon 400mmf2.8 - Don’t even think any of the above equaled the quality of this lens. (though they got amazingly close!) Not only do the tele-converters work well at the maximum telephoto range for 200mm but quite decent results occur throughout the 70-200mm range. Of course, one does not want to normally use tele-converters other than at the maximum zoom but it can be forced upon one, if there is no time to remove the tele-converter. In summary, this is a costly lens, but it does represent the state of the art, and is one of Nikon's best attempts to give us the ultimate in quality. This lens is like owning a Ferrari. Beautiful to look at but meant to be driven by someone who understands what it really can do, and has driven lots of other sport cars in the past.

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

Verified Purchase