Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR vs Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105 DC, 135 DC, 180/2.8

[Jedi]

Jedi. I'm not too sure what do you mean with "agressive" for portraits.

I checked the dictionary, I'm sure of the meaning the word "aggressive": Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4 isn't aggressive. It's a very , very kind portrait lens!!!!!! It's very, very soft lens!!

[Jedi]

I would not sell those prime lenses. I could not bear to. I'd eat rice and beans until I could save enough money to buy the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, etc. Nikkor.

Dave Hartman who unfortunately doesn't own any of the discussed lenses.

Hello, thanks for your council of  wisdom. Many times, with our "disease", it's hard to resist! maybe it's the best choice.

[MFloyd]

By the way, in more than 40 years, I sold a lot of (Nikon) camera bodies, I never sold a lens ..... 😉

[chambeshi]

There is a consensus among the experienced Nikonians (indeed in other camera systems too) that the best prime lenses are in their own class of high optical quality and performance. Few zooms can compete, but as you likely have read, the reviewers rate the 70-200 f2.8E one of the best zoom lenses ever... eg PhotographyLife. Thom Hogan argues this 70-200 edges out [nearly] all Nikon-fit primes at all focal lengths:

"Let me put it another way: at present the only three primes I know of that perform better than the 70-200mm f/2.8E at the same focal length are the 200mm f/2, the recent Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E, and the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus."
 
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html

One photographer will rate a particular lens as the "silk purse" but it will be considered the "Pig's ear" by another Ultimately, it is a matter of personal choice of the aesthetics, and above all these lenses serve a diversity of applications (a fact too rarely appreciated!).

Thus, I personally rate my 85 f1.4D AF very highly, but then do not own a 70-200 f4E. And I argue the DC Nikkors are also in their own league for portraiture. See the Threads here on NG. THe 200 f2 is also a unique - and expensive - optic, which some photographers find to be too heavy

[Jedi]

By the way, in more than 40 years, I sold a lot of (Nikon) camera bodies, I never sold a lens ..... 😉

I sold, for example:

Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF.2 to buy Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to buy Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 to buy VRII, which I sold to buy Zeiss 85/1.4 and Zeiss 135/2
Nikon AF-D 35-70mm f/2.8 to buy Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8,
Nikon 200mm f/4 AI-s to Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8

........, for example.

[MILLIREHM]

Excuse me, have you ever used this lens, the Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4??? Aggressive sharpness???

Yes I have, i own it. And I described my impression based on my experience with my sample. I took the word agressive as it was there, being aware that it is not a too precise descriptoin Compared to the 135 DC or 105/2,5 it is less soft and less forgiving in showing details. Sometimes that is good sometimes other lenses are a better choice. The AF-S 200/2 is something completely different btw

[Jedi]

There is a consensus among the experienced Nikonians (indeed in other camera systems too) that the best prime lenses are in their own class of high optical quality and performance. Few zooms can compete, but as you likely have read, the reviewers rate the 70-200 f2.8E one of the best zoom lenses ever... eg PhotographyLife. Thom Hogan argues this 70-200 edges out [nearly] all Nikon-fit primes at all focal lengths:

"Let me put it another way: at present the only three primes I know of that perform better than the 70-200mm f/2.8E at the same focal length are the 200mm f/2, the recent Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E, and the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus."
 
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html

One photographer will rate a particular lens as the "silk purse" but it will be considered the "Pig's ear" by another Ultimately, it is a matter of personal choice of the aesthetics, and above all these lenses serve a diversity of applications (a fact too rarely appreciated!).

It's true:

1) There are very, very good wonderful reviews about 70-200mm f/2.8E FL: I have opened this thread for this reason: a) 70-200mm  performs better than the primes, for portraits and landscapes (bokeh, colours, sharpness)?, b) Do you would like to change my primes?

2) It's a subjective choice, a personal taste: for example, I sold Nikon Af-S 85mm f/1.4G to buy Nikon AF-D 85mm f/4, because the G lens was too contrasty for portrait; for example, I prefer Zeiss tones or Nikon AF-D styles, for the colours, to the new Nikon AF-G lenses. The weight of Nikon 200mm f/2 G isn't a problem for me, but the problem would be the price, so I have bought the Nikon F-D 180mm f/2.8 and I'm searching for Nikon 200mm f/2 I-S, for its lower price than the 200/2 AF-S G and its colours.

It's also a subjective choice, personal taste

[Seapy]

What I have to do? I sell the primes to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR, to obtain an only one lens, which I could use for portrait and landscape?

David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.

It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw.  He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it.  That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.

The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool.  More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.

[Jedi]

Thanks for your clarity and help.

[chambeshi]

David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.

It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw.  He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it.  That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.

The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool.  More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.

Superb analogy :-) Although many event photographers use zooms, notably for weddings, I would suspect the more appealing records of bride and groom et al testify to the optical prowess of choice primes

[MFloyd]

I have 3 fixed focal lenses in the 70-200 mm range. I never considered to sell these for replacement by a zoom (which I own).

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I would keep at least some of the primes and save until you can afford the zoom. The 70-200 FL is exceptionally good both for landscape and sports. For portraits in the studio, I’m very happy with the zoom as I can control the lighting the contrast doesn’t get excessive. For natural light portraits ”on location” it is also good but I think some of the primes produce better out of focus rendering especially in front of the subject. And of course many primes in this range are substantially more compact.

Overall the 70-200/2.8 FL has been a positive surprise and I think Nikon really hit it out of the park with this version.

[Macro_Cosmos]

I own the 70-200 FL version, and have passed on some of the lenses you've mentioned. Here's my 2 cents.

First of all, if AF performance is a thing at all, the 70-200 FL beats them all. MF experience is great on the 70-200 too, unlike most other AF lenses that are abysmal when it comes to manual focusing.
Bokeh on the 70-200 FL is great, I love it. The Tamron 70-200mm G2 also has great bokeh and rendering, but it has quite severe focus breathing issues which is not found on the 70-200 FL. I would figure it's an annoyance at portrait distances.

For landscapes, you'd want a steady tripod, and preferably a replacement lens foot:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/assets/images/products/LCF-11-for-Nikon-70-200mm-f2-8E-FL-ED-VR-2016.main-1.png?fcts=20180216042736&resizeid=6&resizeh=1000&resizew=1000

The 70-200 FL is light weight in my book, but certainly not light enough to just sit on the camera in the breeze for longer exposures.

You own the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and 180mm D-series fast prime lenses. Which ones are your favourite? I sold my 180mm AF-D and dropped the 135mm f/2 DC from my list because it wasn't as good as the 105mm in terms of optics. The 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss classic and 105mm f/2 DC-nikkor were on my list a while ago, but I've forgotten about them altogether after purchasing the new 70-200mm FL.

My suggestion is to rent one for a week or so, and don't delete any photos. Load images and keep them in a program like lightroom, this allows you to see which focal length you are using the most. You may then base your decision off the sample you have. I absolutely love my 70-200 FL, and some may disagree, but it does have prime traits. I own an 85mm f/2.8 PC-E which is sharper than the 70-200mm at close focus distances, but both are plenty sharp.

I made this a while ago to illustrate the fact that different software handle files differently, it could be somewhat helpful here to exemplify the expected rendition of the 70-200 FL:
Nikon D810 Jpeg Fine VS LR Raw and C1 Raw Conversions by Macro Cosmos (DH)

Edit: I forgot to mention VR and the 4 programmable (somewhat) buttons on the 70-200 FL.
VR allows me to shoot at 200mm, 1/50 handheld. Not the best in the world and I know people who can easily do 1/20 with the right technique, but it's good enough for me.
The 4 buttons are indispensable. I have them programmed for AF and use them more than I use my back button for AF. Also note that the zoom and focus rings are reverted unlike conventional nikkor zooms. It took me... maybe 10 minutes to get used to it, so no big deal to me.

Cheers!
MC

[Jedi]

David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.

It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw.  He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it.  That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.

The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool.  More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.

So you think technically anyway Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are irreplaceable to obtain a precise, specific, pleasant and satisfying result.

[Jedi]

I own the 70-200 FL version, and have passed on some of the lenses you've mentioned. Here's my 2 cents.

First of all, if AF performance is a thing at all, the 70-200 FL beats them all. MF experience is great on the 70-200 too, unlike most other AF lenses that are abysmal when it comes to manual focusing.
Bokeh on the 70-200 FL is great, I love it. The Tamron 70-200mm G2 also has great bokeh and rendering, but it has quite severe focus breathing issues which is not found on the 70-200 FL. I would figure it's an annoyance at portrait distances.

For landscapes, you'd want a steady tripod, and preferably a replacement lens foot:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/assets/images/products/LCF-11-for-Nikon-70-200mm-f2-8E-FL-ED-VR-2016.main-1.png?fcts=20180216042736&resizeid=6&resizeh=1000&resizew=1000

The 70-200 FL is light weight in my book, but certainly not light enough to just sit on the camera in the breeze for longer exposures.

You own the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and 180mm D-series fast prime lenses. Which ones are your favourite? I sold my 180mm AF-D and dropped the 135mm f/2 DC from my list because it wasn't as good as the 105mm in terms of optics. The 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss classic and 105mm f/2 DC-nikkor were on my list a while ago, but I've forgotten about them altogether after purchasing the new 70-200mm FL.

My suggestion is to rent one for a week or so, and don't delete any photos. Load images and keep them in a program like lightroom, this allows you to see which focal length you are using the most. You may then base your decision off the sample you have. I absolutely love my 70-200 FL, and some may disagree, but it does have prime traits. I own an 85mm f/2.8 PC-E which is sharper than the 70-200mm at close focus distances, but both are plenty sharp.

I made this a while ago to illustrate the fact that different software handle files differently, it could be somewhat helpful here to exemplify the expected rendition of the 70-200 FL:
Nikon D810 Jpeg Fine VS LR Raw and C1 Raw Conversions by Macro Cosmos (DH)

Edit: I forgot to mention VR and the 4 programmable (somewhat) buttons on the 70-200 FL.
VR allows me to shoot at 200mm, 1/50 handheld. Not the best in the world and I know people who can easily do 1/20 with the right technique, but it's good enough for me.
The 4 buttons are indispensable. I have them programmed for AF and use them more than I use my back button for AF. Also note that the zoom and focus rings are reverted unlike conventional nikkor zooms. It took me... maybe 10 minutes to get used to it, so no big deal to me.

Cheers!
MC

Great!! Thanks for the council!!!