Advice on long lens for FX

I don't understand all the Nikon 70-200mm VR lens bashing on Photo.net. I used one (a rental) in 2003 shooting slides of the Concorde landing at Boeing Field, and they looked sharp corner to corner to me.
If you have always used the 70-200mm wide open, have you thought about using a tripod and stopping down to f5.6? You may see better edge sharpness that way.

Even though the 70-300 VR doesn't share the 70-200's vignetting and corner softness, in 90% of the image area the 70-200 is far cleaner and crispier. So you might want to reconsider that.

Options that you may consider: 80-200/2.8D AF Nikkor "N" (with tripod collar), 100mm ZF & 180/2.8 ED Nikkor etc.

Or you could just compose your tele shots in such a way that you won't need sharp detail in the very corners of the frame.

I agree, Dave. Perhaps I'm lucky - but when I've used my 70-200/2.8 on a 35mm film body, it's been more than acceptable for real life shooting. I don't use it for formal landscape shots, so perhaps I'm not fussy enough about how it renders cactus needles in those tiny corner margins - but I've yet to see a film image of mine that jumped out as an indication that I shouldn't have trusted that lens to do the job.

Dave,

Thanks for your reply. First, I don't really see any "bashing" in my comments. :^} I own the lens, and love it, so I have no reason to bash it. I'm really asking a legitimate question.

Secondly, if you shot with it in 2003 you were using a Nikon DX body, and everyone agrees that the lens is top-notch on a DX body. Since I'm using FX bodies, the story is different.

Stopping down is not going to solve my problem.

Thanks,

Mark

Mark, Dave was shooting full frame, slides.

"90% of the image area the 70-200 is far cleaner and crispier" I have both the 70-200mm and 70-300mm VR and the 70-300mm delivers equally good image quality to the 70-200mm. The 70-200mm is obviously better in low light but I don't think that is an issue here.

I suggest you borrow the lens and do some side-by-side testing with your lens to see if you like it.

"Been reading up on this..." Why not try your 70-200mm lens out on your camera and see how it works for you. I don't have any problems with mine.

Ilkka
>> Options that you may consider: 80-200/2.8D AF Nikkor "N" (with tripod collar), 100mm ZF & 180/2.8 ED Nikkor etc.

Thanks. That's kind of what I was looking for. I started looking at this only after noticing that Thom Hogan and Moose Peterson had both dropped the 70-200 in favor of the 70-300mm vr. (when using FX bodies)

Of course you're right that I could just take care with my compositions. Maybe I should think more seriously about this option.

Are you using any of these alternatives you mentioned? If so, what is your favorite?

Thanks,
Mark

Elliot/Dave,

Oops, sorry to make the assumption that I did. I normally don't care that much about the edges, but in this case I do. I'm trying to get the composition right in the viewfinder, as this workshop is all about composition.

Thanks,
Mark

All,

What really got me thinking this way was Bjørn's latest review of the 70-200.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR

Thom Hogan says that the 70-300mm is a better lens for the FX bodies:
http://www.bythom.com/choice.htm

I'm not one to just accept what others say without doing my own tests, but I don't think these guys are know for shabby testing. It seems from here that the opinions are still varied though.

Mark

I have yet to test my 70-200VR on my D700. I've picked up a copy of the 70-300VR for lighter carrying & travel when I don't foresee using the 300mm AF-S f/4.
Still there's like Ilkka writes - the 80-200mm f/2.8 of which I actually have an older copy I should test on my D700 & see how it will work. I also recommend the 180mm f/2.8 Nikkor as a prime which is on Bjorn's top pick lenses from Nikon.
Now - if you have money to spend & need 200mm - - may I suggest the 200mm f/2 prime - - I've seen just stunning examples from that lens.
Lil :-)