Upgrade from 70-300mm VR to 70-200mm 2.8 VR2

<p>Did you upgrade from 70-300mm VR and keep the 70-300mm? Why or why not?</p>

<p>I didn't because I have neither lens ;-)<br /> But I have 2 lenses that are somewhat similar, and I think there is enough parallel to make the answer practical. When I bought my AF-D 80-200 f/2.8, I decided to keep the not-very-good 70-300 f/4-5.6G (the old one without VR). The reason simply being: it's about 1 kg less weight, and a lot smaller. Sometimes, it's a practical lens to keep around when I may maybe need a tele, for not very critical shots. To carry the 1,2kg f/2.8 lens all day for that is a bit too much. Second, I did not need the recoup the money either, so there was no urge to sell the lens. And I still have them both today, though sometimes I think of changing the 70-300 to a modern one (either the VR you have, or the Tamron with VC). But no rush.<br /> In short, to me, these are two completely different lenses due to the weight.</p>

<p>I have both 70-300 VR and 70-200 2.8 VR. 70-300 is the one I carry for a walk around lens in the woods. 70-200 is more for indoor events (I used to shoot Indian dance events on stage) and for my studio shoots.<br>

Recently, on my visit to Alaska, I took the 70-200 with 1.7 TC since this combo is better than the 70-300 VR. I like the 70-300 for its weight but have to be careful to get good sharpness at the long end.</p>

<p>I upgraded from the 70-300 to the 70-200/4 G-VR, and I sold the 70-300.</p>

<p>I see these as different lenses for different purposes. One is not an upgrade over the other in that regard. If you are doing weddings, the 70-200mm f2.8 VR is the lens you need. If you are talking about a lens for general photography/travel, my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 stays home. It's usually not long enough for wildlife etc., it's bulky to carry in cities, and it's bulky to pack on an airline. I mostly use it for wedding work etc. If I wasn't doing that, I would sell the lens and just use the 80-400mm AFS as my long zoom.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>i got the 70-300 after the 70-200. they are entirely different lenses. i shoot events and portraits with 70-200. the 70-300 is one of the least-used lenses in my bag but its very useful for outdoors use in good light and travel. i actually have the tamron VC version which is super sharp. if i could only have one it would be 70-200 no question.</p>

<p>I have both and they each have different uses. The 2.8 is primarily used as an indoor event lens or for portraits. On occasion as a track and field lens. The 70-300VR is my travel tele zoom. It packs small and light and does the best possible job at zoos etc. Would have actually upgraded this to the 80-400AFS but the latter is too expensive. </p>

<p>So the question is what do you need to do with each lens? </p>

<p>I had the 70-300, traded it in on the 70-200 II, then missed the 70-300 for walk-about and bought a used copy. So now I have both, I use the 70-300 with my D300 travel kit (with 16-85) and the 70-200 II with my D800 (sometimes with the 1.7 TC). Happy to have both!</p>