70-200 vrII vs 105 1.4

[1234]

Welp, just found out my 70-200 vr is just a big ol paperweight.  Looking to replace it, originally was thinking with the second version of that lens but keep going back to the 105.  I LOVE creamy backgrounds but need something that will keep up with dogs (I focus on pet photography).  I was looking at the 135 but have read the autofocus is on the slower side.  I currently have the 14-24mm and the 50mm so looking for something with a longer reach.  I keep reading things on the internet (sharpness and how fast it focuses) that keeps me going back and forth between these two lenses.  I plan on renting both of these to check them out but was wondering what your thoughts are on these two? Or if there is another prime at a longer focal length you'd recommend? 

Thank you!!

[Brian]

What happened to your 70-200? Just wondering. 
 

The 105 is a legendary lens which works extremely well on both a DSLR and Mirrorless with the adapter. It’s wicked sharp. The problem is, it’s 105mm. If you photograph Dogs outdoors, I don’t know how well that lens would work for you. Are you around 105mm a lot? What Aperture are you usually at? Because when I have shot dogs, I’ve always been at f/5.6 to get their snout/nose and eyes in focus. Now if this is just studio work, and they stay in one spot that’s different. Then a fixed focal length you could make it work.
 

Second Choice: A Nikon 70-200 E lens. (The newest version.) I own both a 70-200VR II and a 70-200E. Why do I have both? Because of my stupid D850. That camera and its 45MP require the best glass. My original 70-200 VRII works fine and there isn’t anything wrong with it. I use that with my other camera kit when I shoot weddings. 
 

What I can say is the 70-200E is sharper and better in every way than its two predecessors, except Nikon swapped the Zoom and Focusing Rings. I hate that the zoom is towards the front of the lens, but you get used to it. That’s the only downside. 
 

Which one? That’s tough. If you shoot on a Studio primary, then 105. Anything else, get a 70-200E. Currently, the 70-200 E lens is $1896.95, which is a STEAL. That’s $900 less than the original asking price and if you can afford it, BUY IT. Of course, the 105 is the same price, so I see your dilemma.

Personally, I’d get a 70-200E since it’s so cheap and rent a 105 1.4E to see how you like it. That lens isn’t going anywhere, but I’d hate for you to blow $1900 and have it sit. You know what a 70-200 can do for you. The 105 is an unknown. 105mm might be too short for you and dogs. A 135mm lens would be better, but it’s an older lens and doesn’t focus quick. After renting a 105 lens, and really testing it, if you like it...buy it next year. The 70-200E for $1896 is just too good to pass up. 

[Brian]

Oh, as far as something in the 100mm-200mm range, it’s the 70-200E. The 135 is an excellent lens, but is in dire need of a refresh. My thinking this won’t happen, and if it does, it will be a 135mm f/1.8 and be a Mirrorless Only Lens. (This is pure speculation on my part.) 

[1234]

So since I posted this my 70-200 has gotten back a bit of life (what a roller coaster!)  As I was calibrating it, it was originally showing astigmatism however after changing a few things, it seems like its just showing soft focus.  Nikon won't touch it because its too old and it doesn't have the parts anymore, and a repair guy who I was talking to (who was very helpful through all this) is worried that if there is something going on (and he suspects there is), he won't be able to fix it.  So I have it calibrated to the best I can and I am going to take it out and see how it goes.  Unfortunately since I also found out, as I had suspected, my 50mm 1.4 is junk (can't be calibrated and out of warranty), It just leaves me with my 14-24 which really changes the pictures I am able to take.  Strangely enough, I have gotten sharper photos out of my 50 than i have with my 70-200 so my hopes aren't very high for all of this.  I have read several of your posts so I don't think you will be surprised to hear about the 50mm!

I have been talking to a few pro pet photographers and they all seem to have the 70-200, while I don't want to get it because 'everyone else has it', I can't deny why everyone has it - I think I've just been so disappointed in my own that I am looking at other lenses.  That being said, anytime I see a photo that makes me go 'wow' its either taken at the super wide angle (14-24) or the 105 or 135 length.  I would love to shoot studio primarily but I know in the next year or two, that's not going to happen, and when I'm outside I normally shoot at 200mm.  Originally I had the 135 on my list but read several places that the auto focus is very slow? I think getting the new 70-200 will be the smartest choice and will definitely rent the 105 and play around with it.  Maybe I will eventually get to carry both around!

As always, thank you so much for your time and help!

[Brian]

The 50mm 1.4G is a piece of shit lens. If your 70-200 was worse than that lens, I feel really bad for you.
 

Honestly, your opinion is a bit skewed since your 70-200 was so off. Truth be told, I really wasn’t into the 70-200 VR. The VRII was much better and the latest “E” version is even sharper. It also doesn’t have the “focus breathing” that the earlier two lenses suffered from  Meaning, 200mm was more like 135mm when you got closer  it’s hard to describe. I’m sure there are plenty of blog articles about this subject  

Here are your choices at 200mm:

70-200 f/2.8 E FL

70-200 f4

200mm f/2.0

I’d still get the 70-200E and ditch your old lens. 

[Brian]

The AF 135mm f/2.0 lens relies on your camera body’s focus motor to work. It’s not like your current  50 or 70-200, which has built in focus motors in the lenses themselves. That’s why it’s “slow.” It was fast, for the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Today...notsomuch. 

[Brian]

One more thing. Nikon stopped selling parts to 3rd party repair centers, so if Nikon won’t touch it, don’t bother having it repaired. Honestly, retire your current lens and get the 70-200E. It’s a huge difference over what you’ve experienced.