70-200mm f2.8 vs 70-200mm f4

[ksasidhar]

I wanted purchase 70-200mm lens for Nikon D7000. I can see three lenses in this category.

Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 FL ED VR
AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4 ED VR

I have two questions in this regard before I decide which one to purchase.

How much difference will f/2.8 make over f/4. I understand that the apperture size is larger and it will work better in low light conditions. But I am not sure how much better it will be. I primarily like shooting landscapes and nature along with sunset and sunrise which will be at low light conditions.

Second question is if f/2.8 is considerably better, can Tamron be considered or Nikkor will be much better?

Thanks all.

Sasidhar



Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[Strodav]

Having bought Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma glass over the years my recommendation is this. If you are willing to tune your lenses then Tamron and Sigma are excellent alternatives to Nikon. If you are not willing to tune, then buy the original camera manufacturer's glass. If you do not know how to tune the learning curve is fairly steep and it takes a lot of time and patience. In any case, you should learn how to test your lenses yourself. With that said, I decided on the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 and it has performed very well for over the years, but only after tuning. It rarely comes off my D850 and then for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G2. Here's what DxOMark.com says.

A difference of a point or two in overall score doesn't mean much. I tend to rate Sharpness high, distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration lower as they can be corrected in Post. Transmission is important as it tells you what the true f/stop of the lens is, i.e., how much light let into the lens actually gets to the sensor and the difference between the lens f/stop and transmission is the amount of light that is ratting around in the lens.

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is significant in three ways. First, it's a whole stop or f/2.8 lets in double the light of the f/4 lens. If you are shooting still subjects like landscapes a stop isn't all that important as you can always half the shutter speed, but you are probably going to be using the lens more like f/8 for DOF anyway. For things that are moving, that stop can be significant. Second, most glass performs better a stop or two down from wide open, so the f/2.8 glass gives you a bit more leeway there. Third, the faster the lens, the heavier it is, so the f/4 lens should be smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 lenses. If you are hiking in for your landscape shots, this can be an important factor. Again, you will probably be using the lens at higher f/stops anyway for DOF.

 

[photoflyer]

There is a lot you can do to compensate for a lack of lens speed but in the end there is no real substitute. Sure, you can get a camera that is better in low light. Built in image stabilization (VR) help immensely on the new cameras. I have the Canon R6 and it along with the new GPS approach system we have in the airplane are the two most incredible pieces of technology I have ever used. In low light, high ISO situations the results are breathtaking. Having said that, I have the Canon 70-200 f 2.8 L and would get it over the F 4 version. I say that because I also have the 24-105 F4 L and while I get great results from it, I can see why those who have the 24-70 F 2.8 L rave about it.

Usually the F4 variants are smaller and lighter - that may be important to you.
The F4 variants are cheaper

But, if the one stop of light and slightly better bokeh that come from it are important to you - go with speed. You most important investment in photography is first time developing your skills and then your glass.

Finally, I suspect you will find others with the Tamron and Sigma versions of these lens who are very happy with them. If you don't mind paying for Nikkor it is likely optically better and more durable. Only you can decide if difference is truly discernible and worth it.

 

[ac12]

As @Strodav said, f/4 vs f/2.8 depends on YOUR shooting situation.

• Generally, in LOW light FAST glass wins. You would be shooting at max aperture, so the f/2.8 lens.
  
  • Especially since the sensor in your D7000 is a couple generations behind, and does not have the best high ISO sensor.
  • But if you are shooting off a tripod, then it does not matter.
• But if the lens is too heavy for you, you physically suffer.
  
  • I can hold the 70-200/2.8 lens, but NOT for 5-6 hours of a JV+varsity set of games. So I use the lighter f/4 lens.
  • The Nikon 70-200/2.8 is twice/2x the weight of the 70-200/4 lens.
• If you are shooting at f/8 or smaller, then IMHO, it does not make a difference.
  
  • I would go with the lighter lens.
• Review your sunrise/sunset pics. Do you REALLY need a faster lens?
  
  • When I am shoot a sunset, I usually close down the lens. I do not want a white blob for the sun.
    
  • If you are shooting landscape AT sunset, not the sunset itself, then you may need a faster lens.
  • The specifics matter.

 

[ksasidhar]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[ac12]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

IF you NEED the speed of the lens, then you need the f/2.8. Otherwise . . .
While I am not a portrait shooter, some use the 70-200/2.8 for the shallower DoF of the f/2.8 aperture.

The 16-80/2.8-4 is a great DX lens.
The reason it is cheaper than you are thinking it should be, is because it is a DX lens, not a FX lens. If it were a good FX lens, it would be much more expensive.

 

[Strodav]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Review

Personally, I'd go with with Nikon's 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 DX before going with the 16-80mm assuming you have a DX camera.

 

[ac12]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Review

Personally, I'd go with with Nikon's 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 DX before going with the 16-80mm assuming you have a DX camera.

I went though this mental discussion myself.
If the light level is low, I think the 16-80/2.8-4 is better than the 18-140/3.5-5.6. And I've been in places with the 18-140, where I could have really used the extra speed of the 16-80.
I understand the optics is better on the 16-80.

For travel, the extra reach of the 18-140 is really attractive, and you could get away with just that lens.
But I really miss a wider lens, when my back is literally up against the wall. For that the 16-80 is more attractive.
Tough choice.

 

[Strodav]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Review

Personally, I'd go with with Nikon's 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 DX before going with the 16-80mm assuming you have a DX camera.

I went though this mental discussion myself.
If the light level is low, I think the 16-80/2.8-4 is better than the 18-140/3.5-5.6. And I've been in places with the 18-140, where I could have really used the extra speed of the 16-80.
I understand the optics is better on the 16-80.

For travel, the extra reach of the 18-140 is really attractive, and you could get away with just that lens.
But I really miss a wider lens, when my back is literally up against the wall. For that the 16-80 is more attractive.
Tough choice.

Sounds like you made your decision. Good Luck. Just another thought to share. In my to go bag, I keep the 18-140mm on my D7200 , but take either a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 with me for those times when I want to be prepared for low light situations.

 

[ac12]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR Review

Personally, I'd go with with Nikon's 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 DX before going with the 16-80mm assuming you have a DX camera.

I went though this mental discussion myself.
If the light level is low, I think the 16-80/2.8-4 is better than the 18-140/3.5-5.6. And I've been in places with the 18-140, where I could have really used the extra speed of the 16-80.
I understand the optics is better on the 16-80.

For travel, the extra reach of the 18-140 is really attractive, and you could get away with just that lens.
But I really miss a wider lens, when my back is literally up against the wall. For that the 16-80 is more attractive.
Tough choice.

Sounds like you made your decision. Good Luck. Just another thought to share. In my to go bag, I keep the 18-140mm on my D7200 , but take either a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 with me for those times when I want to be prepared for low light situations.

I got the 18-140 with the D7200. Then later learned about the 16-80/2.8-4. I thought long and hard about getting the 16-80, but owning the 18-140, I could not pull the trigger. Still, I am happy with the 18-140.

Similar to you, I have the 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 for low light.
I would have preferred a 24/1.8 instead of the 35/1.8, for wider indoor coverage.

 

[RVT1K]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. I have one and it is fantastic.
Look for a used example to help offset the difference in price. It took a little time and effort but I got a nice one from eBay for a good price.

 

[ksasidhar]

Thanks all. I carry 50mm f1.8 and 18-105mm with me. I first want to get a 70-200mm lens to cover larger range of focus. But I was also interested in 16-80mm lens because my 18-105mm lens does not do well in low light conditions.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[ac12]

Thanks all. I carry 50mm f1.8 and 18-105mm with me. I first want to get a 70-200mm lens to cover larger range of focus. But I was also interested in 16-80mm lens because my 18-105mm lens does not do well in low light conditions.

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

You really have to study your problem.
While I like the 16-80/2.8-4, if you are really shooting in a low light environment, for a zoom, I would prefer the 17-50/2.8, for a constant f/2.8.
Every lens is a a compromise.

 

[greybeard]

Dear all, thanks for your suggestions. I realized that f/2.8 is twice as heavier as f/4. That coupled with double the price, I might go with f/4 lens.

Going through all the Nikkor lens, I came across 16-80mm F2.8 - 4 DX format lens. Considering lens speed, the price feels cheaper than what it should be. Is there anything wrong with the lens?

Thanks,
Sasidhar

Sent from my Nokia 6.1 using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

The 16-80 F/2.8-4.0 DX is Nikons best normal DX zoom.

 

[mjcmt]

I like staying w/ Nikon lenses because there is in-camera correction for distortion and vignetting, and they focus better than 3rd party lenses.

Here's a link to a comparison of the 70-200 f4 vs 2.8 and the 2.8 is sharper in the center but also heavier and larger.
Nikon 70-200mm f/4G VR Review - Page 3 of 6 - Photography Life

The 70-300 AF-P is a fantastic compact lens with a greater reach (450mm on DX) which is quite useful, but slower.

Here's a link, if you scroll down comparing the 70-300P to 70-200 f4 and F2.8
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR AF-P Review - Page 3 of 6 - Photography Life