Packing
===================
Like most other lenses, Nikon shipped this lens well protected by a sturdy box, adequate cushioning and a super matching and transportable bag.
Compared I feel as though this bag is not as stable as the then supplied lens Lederköcher of 80-200 - but it really was only in larger shipments advantageous because it has otherwise hardly used it because of the bulkiness.
Processing & feel
===================
The production quality of the Teles can also be absolutely seen. According to the previous time we see no signs of wear, and all components (gums, Geli, Stativschelle) fit snugly and no play.
It remains to be seen though whether the lens is in a few years even without gross flaws, but I'm confident. At 80 now depends for example the lens hood only very loose in the thread - the VR II Nikon is indeed a metal snap closure, which should also withstand frequent operation.
Since the push some contagious glass and the housing construction is made of metal, also touches his new very high and heavy. Due to the slightly shrunken tube diameter it is compared with the old but even a little better in the hand. That you would expect no lightweight, but can presumably be explained in advance by itself.
Zoom and focus ring are further easily accessible at the front and give no cause for complaint.
A small point that I think is a pity, is the modified Stativschelle. Because the center of gravity I carry the camera-lens combination while running happy at the "foot" and place still finds that the round was made from 80-200 simply "organic" and what is much more pleasant for the hand.
In return, you get the new two threads to attach the tripod, depending on the gravity further forward or back can.
Focus & resolution
===================
Undoubtedly, obtained with this one of the best Tele compromises when it comes to focus and focal length variability - but I have to say quite clearly that the AF-S 80-200mm hardly stands back here. While the overall focus has increased a bit and also the vignette was slightly reduced - but this, that you never have to pick up the new in a small degree because of these qualities.
A little one sees the temporal evolution perhaps even in contrast and scattered light situations where the 70 the "contrast-nose" has something forward.
Also, the chromatic aberrations have been somewhat reduced.
By contrast, the AF speed is impressively high and the 80s.
What a change but really justify - and where the new, other competitors can beat, is reflected in the (then) new development of the stabilizer:
Image stabilization (VR II)
===================
This works so perfectly that it is a real pleasure to use it. If no was at 1 / 200s conclusion may now times also 1 / 50s or with a steady hand even 1 / 30s used. Try here actually worth.
Especially I noticed that in a short stint with the D800 which then stood in front of the problem is that the rule of thumb "exposure time = 1 / focal length" was no longer readily.
With VR enabled, it was possible again - even to 1 / 80s.
So if you order every ounce brightness is glad may love to 70-200 VR II ascend. At weddings late at night an invaluable advantage - even in today's times when representing ISOs to 6400 no more magic.
Incidentally, also recommended for short video clips from the hand very.
Yet what about the often sought-stabilization modes:
VR Normal compensates for vertical camera shake only. Should eg be used in Mitziehern.
VR Active compensates for any camera shake. Thus, if for Mitzieher unsuitable, but as good as anything in which camera shake is possible.
On the stand of the VR should be disabled because it "artificial" can cause camera shake otherwise by the proper motion of the addressed by the motor lenses.
Converter suitability
===================
So far I could TC-14 and TC-20 II III test and find on the D700 is no greater loss of sharpness. When converted 400mm f / 5.6 and the VR plays back from its full capacity, which still allows for super pictures at dusk. On cameras with higher resolution (D750, D800, ... or DX format cameras), I recommend to stop down at least one level for optimum sharpness.
A word to the TCs at 80-200: The 14er can be used well, with the 20s are the results but unfortunately somewhat low in contrast, slightly out of focus and you realize that the older Tele was not necessarily designed.
Focal reducer
===================
As already mentioned by others: For distances near the Minimaleinstellgrenze the VR II behaves like a 65-135mm lens. What is needed is the 200mm even when object distances smaller than two meters necessarily, you should look for an alternative. This should be a simple previously aware.
In everyday life I could personally have not see that that has really bother me.
Conclusion
===================
Due to the potent VRs, the very good picture quality and pleasant feel I can recommend the new 70-200er anyone who is looking for the best compromise between focal length and sharpness variability.
The suitability for teleconverter can be called as a plus point.
Those who do not actually really need the VR, as it for example photographed mainly when there is sufficient light, can 80-200 f / 2.8 will save a lot of money with a second purchase of the AF-S. Since the production of the lens was discontinued around the turn of the millennium, a previous function check is recommended. Here attention should be paid specifically to a louder "buzzing" of the AF motor, which can indicate an early death, according to various opinions.
Even more money can be had with the save "AF-D-variant", which is visually just a little softer and focused a little more slowly. This was but even produces a little longer, which allows the acquisition not that old models. Here only has to be noted that cameras do not allow autofocus without own focus motor. These are all "small", such as D3200, D5300.
The D7000 and above but work wonderfully.
Who wants to spend a little less money, but want to put on a current Nikon lens and the strong maximum aperture not needed, may also like to view the AF-S 70-200mm f / 4.0.
Otherwise, a look into the sigma or Tamronlager worth as well. In Sigma I was unfortunately only has often with initial quality control problems fighting. To this end, maybe my ultimately positive report for Sigma 35mm f / 1.4 is interesting:
-
About questions and suggestions, I am pleased at any time in the comments. Should you have any criticism of my report, you may express this there also gladly.