best telephoto lens for Nikon D850

[chris-edi]

Hi,

After long deliberation (I posted a thread a while ago to help me decide which camera to buy) I finally purchased a brand new Nikon D850. I got a Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens with it, this will be my main lens. I am now looking into getting a wide angle and a telephoto to compliment the main lens. I shoot landscapes and cityscapes only.
For the wide angle I am eyeing the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR. is that the best choice to complement my focal range or is there something else I could consider?
For the telephoto I can't quite decide and wondered if anyone had any input. I am really intrigued by the following three
Nikon 70-200mm f4 G AF-S ED VR
Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR I
Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P

After spending a lot of money on the camera and first lens, my budget is a bit limited so I thought of perhaps getting used equipment. I really want a top quality lens, so the 70-200 f2.8 seems the most exciting of the three, although I am slightly concerned about it being too heavy to carry around outdoors on hikes etc, which is why I'd also like to consider the f4. Is there much difference between the two? My other concern was that the zoom wasn't great enough, which is why I considered the 70-300, although with it being so much cheaper I thought perhaps the build, image quality etc is a lot lower? Perhaps there are other options I am missing too, also with some extra zoom? I'd like to stick with Nikon lenses, just a personal preference

Any advice, experience with the lenses or other feedback would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
Chris

 

[bobman]

F4 is much more compact and lighter than the 2.8 and produces great images. Wouldn't bother with 70-300 on a D850 personally.

 

[Retune]

I might be inclined to get the 70-200 f/4. Can you see yourself shooting many landscapes wide open? If you do need the extra stop, then consider the VR II, which has the reputation for being significantly better in the corners, where it's sharper and has less vignetting than the VR I (potentially more important for landscapes than some other uses). Apart from the higher price, the only disadvantage of the VR II I've seen mentioned is a significant reduction in focal length when focused close, but I imagine this won't be a problem for your application.

 

[Deleted member 89409]

If you need the 2.8 then obviously that one.

The F4 is very good and again if you need that extra stop over the af-p then its a good idea.

I like long lenses and I use the af-p fx. Its the best 70-300 I have ever used by far - BUT I use it on a D500 and Z6 ( 20/24 MPx ). The F4 or F2.8's are probably better suited to higher MPx bodies. However the MTF of the AFP at the wide end is significantly better than that of the F4 which is showing clear astigmatism. How that translates to the real world I wouldn't know.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

I’ve got both the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F4, they’re both excellent lenses. The 14-24 F2.8 is worth considering, but it’s expensive new and needs a special filter holder if you want to use filters. I’ve never used the 70-200 f2.8 and don’t need the faster aperture, but the weight and cost saving are more useful to me. It’s plenty sharp, but doesn’t give the background separation effect that a wide open 2.8 would. Not an issue for me though as I don’t use it wide open.

Worth a look at third party brands as well, plus don’t forget second hand if money is tight. I think the 16-35 F4 was the last new Nikon lens I bought (back in about 2012), until last year when I bought a new Tamron 100-400.

 

[Andrew Smith]

The Nikon 80-400 is a nice lens, as is the 28-300. I have both.

 

[welshwizard645]

If you are planning to use the telephoto for landscape work there is one significant difference between the /4 and /2.8 to consider. The f4 does not come with a tripod collar as standard whereas the f2.8 does.

I have the 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 non-VR and 70-200/2.8 VRII. If you end up having the same kit there is an advantage that you only need one set of filters (all 77mm) and adapter ring.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I wouldn't entertain the 70-200F4 - it is a piece of s*** compared to the latest 2.8 E version (only get the FL E version).

I've had both, I shoot landscapes extensively and I would know. There is a reason one costs double the other and it's more than just the stop at the bright end. The 2.8 E FL is the very best 70-200 ever made, the D850 is the best full frame DSLR ever made. The 2.8 finds focus faster, more accurately and in lower light and is pretty uniformly sharp all over the frame wide open - you can trust it. The 70-200 F4 is a dog with smeary nasty sides even stopped down.

Don't scrimp and be cheap here, you'll regret it.

For landscapes and shorter lenses - unless you need wider than 20mm on the short end I cannot recommend enough the Nikkor F1.8 20mm. It's also stunning, and I cannot really say the same for the 14-24 or 16-35.

If I moved back to Nikon full frame 70-200 2.8e FL, 20mm F1.8 and either Sigma 24, 35 and 50 art or I'd take a punt on the FL E VR 24-702 .8

 

[holty]

any of the 3 lens's above are all good on the d850 i have 2 of them nikon 70-200 2.8 70-300 af-p also had the 28-300 which was also good as a walk around lens
unless your a pro blowing picture up to the size of a house the f4 will be fine, a bit lighter than the 2.8 version, the d850 has iso of 64 so you have your stop of light back
build quality is very good.
i also have the 24-70 2.8 very good lens and 16-35 f4 another quality lens which accepts filters no problem as all are 77mm
the d850 is a far superior camera than say the long in the tooth d810 which is terrible in low light
by the way the 70-300 af-p is also a very underrated lens which is really fast to focus and is very very sharp this is on my d850 most of the time
type in Ken Rockwell and read his reviews of the above lens's

 

[Donsta]

They're all wonderful choices and probably best defined by needs with regard to budget. If the budget is unlimited, the choice is clear, if its limited, it'll make the choice and you'll be fine...

 

[Diving Pete]

Your question is like buying a brand new Ferrari & fitting remould tyres on it.

 

[Sky]

Moving to the D850 was a good choice, but don't put cheaper lenses on it if you want good results. The camera will reveal any poor technique you may have as it is, without adding cheap glass.

I agree with Steve with regards the 2.8 70-200, but don't get the VR1 - save a little and get the later model. I also wouldn't bother with the f4 - the camera is just too good for it.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Moving to the D850 was a good choice, but don't put cheaper lenses on it if you want good results. The camera will reveal any poor technique you may have as it is, without adding cheap glass.

I agree with Steve with regards the 2.8 70-200, but don't get the VR1 - save a little and get the later model. I also wouldn't bother with the f4 - the camera is just too good for it.

Yes, only the F2.8 FL ED will do. You can get them for £1600 off Panamoz. Wouldn't even bother with the VR2 - got to the latest and greatest FL ED 2.8. Nothing less will be acceptable for a camera with sensor with such a fine pixel density.

 

[Sky]

I only have the VRII at the moment, but am very tempted to sell it and buy the FL ED from Panamoz. I almost bought it at the same time I got the 850, but I thought I'd see how I got on with the VRII first. I've not been disappointed at all, but GAS always takes control and still has me lusting after it.

I may sell my 24-70 and 70-200 to fund one as I don't use the 24-70 much anyway. Ho hum . . .

 

[SFTPhotography]

I only have the VRII at the moment, but am very tempted to sell it and buy the FL ED from Panamoz. I almost bought it at the same time I got the 850, but I thought I'd see how I got on with the VRII first. I've not been disappointed at all, but GAS always takes control and still has me lusting after it.

I may sell my 24-70 and 70-200 to fund one as I don't use the 24-70 much anyway. Ho hum . . .

The only thing with the FL ED is the focus and zoom rings swap position. It is a minor irritant to some, but a major to others. The FL ED version brings in much more uniform sharpness across the frame compared to the older VR2 - something that Nikon zooms suffer with is mushy sides. The FL ED is much more consistent over the frame and mine was sharp all over - even at F2.8.

I foolishly sold it, switched to Canon, didn't get on with the 5ds (shame as the 100-400l II is a peach) so had to rebuy the whole rig. Same applies for the FL ED 24-70 F2.8 over the original 24-70 2.8G.

If you shoot landscape - the sides matter as much as the middle and the later lens by all accounts is better in this regard. The VR also can detect if it's tripod mounted and compensate accordingly. It's a great lens and a steal at the moment. E-Infin have them but are out of stock.

 

[Retune]

I only have the VRII at the moment, but am very tempted to sell it and buy the FL ED from Panamoz. I almost bought it at the same time I got the 850, but I thought I'd see how I got on with the VRII first. I've not been disappointed at all, but GAS always takes control and still has me lusting after it.

I may sell my 24-70 and 70-200 to fund one as I don't use the 24-70 much anyway. Ho hum . . .

Given 20 random photos taken with each lens, do you think you'd be able to tell which was used?:

Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL ED VR

Pictures taken with the amazing NIKKOR 70–200 MM 1:2.8E FL ED VR

www.flickr.com

Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII

A group to discuss and share the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII.

www.flickr.com

 

[SFTPhotography]

Given 20 random photos taken with each lens, do you think you'd be able to tell which was used?:

Nikon 70-200 2.8E FL ED VR

Pictures taken with the amazing NIKKOR 70–200 MM 1:2.8E FL ED VR

www.flickr.com

Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII

A group to discuss and share the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII.

www.flickr.com

Low res though. Try viewing each side by side at 100% and there will be a difference.

 

[Sky]

Given 20 random photos taken with each lens, do you think you'd be able to tell which was used?:

Not without some serious scrutiny that's for sure and most certainly not at that resolution.