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

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by iversonwhite, Aug 1, 2014.

  1. Did you upgrade from 70-300mm VR and keep the 70-300mm? Why or why not?
  2. I didn't because I have neither lens ;-)
    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.
    In short, to me, these are two completely different lenses due to the weight.
  3. 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.
    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.
  4. I upgraded from the 70-300 to the 70-200/4 G-VR, and I sold the 70-300.
  5. 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.
    Kent in SD
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
    So the question is what do you need to do with each lens?
  8. 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!

Share This Page