AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR VS the 70-200 2.8?

donny1963

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
372
Reaction score
30
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR VS the 70-200 2.8, according to DXOMAR website
the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR out performs in sharpness by 6 points, the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is rated at 22, where the 2.8 version of this lense is only rated at 16. and
over all rating the 2.8 version of this lens trails the F4 version by 2 points
so the F4 version is rated better, and in sharpness blows the 2.8 version away..
So a learning lesson here, don't always look a lens as being better because it can go down to a lower number aperture, just because one lens can do 2.8 and the other only F4 doesn't always mean the 2.8 is the winner in quality and sharpness, how ever it will almost always mean more money for the 2,8 verison because people are so hyped about bluring the background, thinking a lesn that does it better then another is better, which is BS!!!! i can blur the background with the F4 as well after all it's zoom lens that goes as far as 200 mm that make sit so easy to blur the background if you have any skill in photography what so ever.. :/

the best part is the F4 is about half the price as the 2.8 version, yes you will feel happy that you got your 2.8 heavy glass and think your getting better pictures as far as sharpness, the fact is the F4 will render better sharpness even tho you paid the high price.

Also remember a lens is not always sharper then another because it can open up wider, in fact using the lens wide open your getting the bottom quality aperture of your lens, almost always most lenses get sharper the higher you set your aperture number, for instance taking a shot at f8 will probably render you better sharpness then if you took it at F2.8, now there is a limit tho, i mean the higher you go doesn't mean if you just jack the Aperture up to it's highest number your getting the highest quality, there is a sweet spot in your lens, if you go over it, your quality will start to fade..
But for the most part most lenses the lower aperture number will probably render you lower sharpness then a high fstop number..
So don't think just because a lens does a lower aperture number makes it a sharper lens.
this is not always true..
and in the case of the 70-200 the F4 vs the F2.8 the F4 wins..
and it's half the price..

Donny
 
Yes..."so the F4 version is rated better, and in sharpness blows the 2.8 version away."

Kirk Tuck mentions this is his experience with multiple systems' f/4 version of manufacturer's 70-200mm lenses: the f/4 versions are easier to shoot, easier to carry, and actually work better over a full day's shooting in his professional assignments. His blog is The Visual Science Lab, and it is well worth reading to keep up on modern-era cameras, lenses, and shooting techniques.

As he recently noted, it's actually BETTER to use a new-era f/4 70-200 lens and have a better-performing lens, and use a little bit of ISO adjustment to make up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4. Canon's new f/4 and Nikons new f4 are very high grade 70-200 lenses. The "OLD" Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS L was not very good; the new one? A VERY high-grade lens.

Besides..once you get to f/4 or f/5.6, there is no real advantage to the heavier f/2.8 lens, is there!

The idea that the f/2.8 lens is automatically "the better optic" is DEAD on the case of many newer zooms; in most cases, the f/4 lenses are newer designs, and were computed/designed to perform better on higher-MP cameras than now 8- or 10- or 15 year-old zoom lens designs. Yet still, we hear people praising the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses.
 
Yes..."so the F4 version is rated better, and in sharpness blows the 2.8 version away."

Kirk Tuck mentions this is his experience with multiple systems' f/4 version of manufacturer's 70-200mm lenses: the f.4 versions are easaier to shoot, easier to carry, and actually work better over a full day's shooting in his professional assignments. His blog is The Visual Science Lab.

Well worth reading to keep up on modern-era cameras, lenses, and shooting techniques. As he recetnyl noted, it's actually BETTER to use an f/4 70-200 lens and have a better-performing lens, and use a little bit of ISO adjustment to make up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.

Besides..once you get to f/4 or f/5.6, there is no real advantage to the heavier f/2.8 lens, is there!
Yeah i use to have the F2.8 which i sold at the photo shop and got the F4 version and was able to put good use to the extra money i saved..
I put it up for sale, and the photo store took 8% of the sale but i still made out. i got the brand new F4 version and had some extra money to play with,
the number one reason was yes it's a better quality sharper lens and it's so much lighter. that 2.8 lens was so heavy when walking trials and stuff with it, i use to get tired quick because of that..

lesson learned i though the 2,8 was the better , when i got the 2,8 lens i saw the F4 and didn't even give it a second look because of the F4 number being the lowest number, but 90% of the time i use this lens out doors in bright sunlight so i really have no need for 2,8 and it can still render a good blur background zooming in at any focal length..

oh and believe it or not the F4 version seems to lock on focus better then the 2.8, alot faster and more accurate go figure..
 
Nothing against the F4 versions of course. If you don't really need 2.8 then the smaller, lighter f4 might make very good sense.

However for me the 2.8 is a better option. There are more than a few occasions where I need to be able to shoot at 2.8, not so much for the background separation as it is that the light levels really are that bad.

Also for me the ability to add a 2x tc and shoot 400mm at 5.6 is huge. With an f4 I'd be at f8, which makes the af system a bit dodgy.

So maybe the f4 is a better fit for you, but it isn't necessarily better for everyone. We all have different needs and styles.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
 
Well here is a little kink in your argument.
Who needs the Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 ?
What about Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC ?
According to DXO mark the F4 is indeed still sharper but with a very small margin 28 vs 30
But calculating overall performance the Tamron is leading over the F4
And here is the main point, you can shoot f4 with the Nikon and with the Tamron but if you want you can shoot f2.8 with the Tamron but not with the Nikon.
Blurring background is one advantage, but what if you in a basketball game with limited lighting and need fast shutter speed to freeze the action ?
The extra stop of light will be a nice bonus.
And last but not least the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC cost almost same as the Nikon 70-200mm f4 and its VC is amazingly effective.

So the only advantage the Nikon F4 has is its size which is a matter of personal preference.

Yes you can blur background nicely at F4 but you can blur it better at f2.8, you have this choice with the Tamron but not with the Nikon F4
Oh and may I remind again its almost the same price ?

Been using my Tamron for over 3 years on DX and FX, use it to shoot portraits, weddings and other events, use it for capture sports action, pretty much everything and its a work horse, never failed me.

No, I would never get the Nikon F4, for me it makes no sense when I can get the Tamron for almost same price.

Here is the comparison by DXO

Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon on Nikon D800E vs Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR on Nikon D800E | DxOMark
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top