need some advise on Nikon 70-210 D f4.5 lens

<p>hello everyone,<br>

I'm back again. i have a Nikon 80-200 for my d7000/d90 and lately i came across this Nikon 70-210 D f4.5 lens. someone is selling it for $150 and i read all the good comments about it. i was diagnosed with Tendonitis and just wondering to get rid of my bulky 80-200 and switch for this cheaper one. (high iso to perform at low light situation with it's fast focusing ability)<br>

so any thought or advise will be greatly appreciated on it's quality, performance, pros-cons etc. Thanks, Regards, Raihan.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 70-210 D f4.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not a constant aperture lens but a 4.5-5.6. It focuses reasonably fast (the D version is geared a lot faster than the non-D). Optically, it's OK stopped down at least one stop - but it's not in the same league as the 80-200/2.8.</p>

<p>I had the lens I think you are referring to, but it was an f/4-5.6, in other words, f/4 at the 70mm focal length. (Later, lenses such as the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR started at the slightly slower aperture.) As Deiter says, the lens you are considering is O.K., but not in the same league as your 80-200mm f/2.8. Many wound up in the used market, and it's available for $105 at KEH (a very reputable used and new equipment seller) in what they grade as EX or excellent condition:<br /> <a href="https://classic.keh.com/246712/nikon-70-210mm-f-4-5-6-d-autofocus-lens-62">https://classic.keh.com/246712/nikon-70-210mm-f-4-5-6-d-autofocus-lens-62</a></p>

<p>So that, if you are in the U.S., or if KEH will ship to where you are, you can get a better deal.</p>

<p>I have this lens and have tested it against the 70-200/4G-VR, the 200/4 Ai-S and the 80-200/4.5-5.6D-AF. In order of sharpness and chromatic aberration, I rate them as follows:<br>

200-70/4 - Easy winner wide open.<br>

200/4 - Not that far behind the 70-200, even wide open.<br>

80-200 and 70-210 are just about equal to one another, but noticeably below the first two (wide open). But, stop them down to f8 and it's difficult to see any difference, except the color saturation is still better in the G-VR.</p>

<p>Bottom line, the 70-210 is a very serviceable lens, no question. However, the 80-200 is nearly as good (70-210 is better at shorter focal lengths, they are equal at 200), smaller and lighter, but more wobbly. Also note that both of 80-200 and 70-210 are massive air pumps and will contribute to sensor dust build-up.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>That's great & cheap lens, very sharp.<br />I was amazed by it.<br>

If you buy it you would not be sorry.</p>

<p>I would get some tennis elbow/golfers elbow support braces that you wear snug on your forearm 2 inches below the elbow and possibly a monopod and keep shooting the 80-200 f2.8.</p>

<p>You did not say what you are using the lens for - I personally think having a lighter lens for use makes a lot of sense. You may consider getting this other lens for occasional or casual use, and use the 80-200 when you need it for its advantages. At any rate, I'd not sell the 80-200 until you're sure this other lens fits your needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>high iso to perform at low light situation with it's fast focusing ability</em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>high iso will not help the AF of a slow lense in low light, so if you really want to shoot lowlight and need a fast and lightweight tele go with one of the 180/2.8s. Its not a zoom but good and lightweight and fast. <br>

At the long end the 70-210 needs 4x the light of a 2.8 lense and thats a lot in a lowlight situation.</p>

<p>I had the 70-210/4-5.6D, 80-200/2.8D (push-pull), and 70-210/f4 constant at one time. Optically, I thought the 4-5.6 lens was not as good as the f4 constant lens, so I sold it. I never did use the 70-210 much since I preferred the images generated by the 2.8 zoom, which I later upgraded to the 70-200/2.8VR.</p>

<p>I now have the new 70-200/f4AFS-VR and highly recommend it. I use it more often than the 2.8 since it is so much more portable but still has great performance. Still have the older constant f/4 lens, it is a good inexpensive lightweight performer, but the AF is noisy.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks so much everyone. Charles I'm wearing a wrist band with metal support inside but after few hours it feels heavy on my hand. Greg I do mostly events like wedding or birthday parties. Thanks once again, will keep my 80-200 :)</p>

<p>If you want a lighter lens in that range, optically the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR is the clear choice, but it is a $1400 lens. If you sell your 80-200mm/f2.8 for that, you need to chip in an additional several hundred dollars (depending on which 80-200mm/f2.8 you have). And for weddings and birthday parties, f2.8 has a clear advantage.</p>

<p>I think you are better off keeping the f2.8 zoom and make sure to give your arm/hands a rest during pauses in the events.</p>

<p>Several years ago I tested the then brand new D3 at a wedding. Since I was also capturing product images of the D3 itself for the review, I didn't have a strap on so that I was holding the camera the entire day. I ended up with shoulder pain that lasted a couple of days. Normally I have a strap on so that I am not holding the camera all day long.</p>

<p>It might help you to know that the zoom action of the 70-210 f4 is normally very light and the lens is fairly short and light. I was content to use it wide open whereas with many f2.8 I could only tolerate them at f3.3- gaining only 1/2 stop.</p>