Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR 1 vs Nikkor 70-200mm f4 for D7100

gryffinwings · Sep 6, 2015

I'm trying to make up my mind on these two lenses. The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 ED-IF AF-S VR or the Nikkor 70-200mm f4. I am going to be using this on my Nikon D7100, I don't know if I will ever bump up to Full Frame camera, for the foreseeable future I will be using DX format. My primary concern is that I like isolating my subjects, but I am concerned about IQ due to pixel density of my D7100. Thoughts please, I've been trying to find additional information on this specific topic, but haven't had much luck finding anything.

Braineack · Sep 6, 2015

Based on your needs I say the 2.8

using tapatalk.

Derrel · Sep 6, 2015

I have a VR-1 70-200...bought it the very week they were introduced, almost by pure accident. My local store got three of them in...once I felt the lens, I had to own it; the build quality at that time felt very "different" from other Nikkors that had come before it. The 70-200 VR-1 has a very,very slender barrel compared to any other 70-200 or 80-200 on the market, and it is quite honestly, the absolutely best-handling lens of its type made, and I've owned five different f/2.8 80--200 or 70-200 from Nikon and Canon, and have shot the Canon 70-200 f/4 old and new IS models. The VR-1 is simply not the fat-barreled pig that others of its speed are. it has extremely rapid autofocusing, and the cool AF-lock buttons on the barrel. It has very,very lovely bokeh rendering; it is a lovely lens for portraiture, a softer background rendering than newer lenses like the Tamron VC 2.8, which is harder, harsher. On APS-C, it is sharp, but it does NOT cover FX Nikon corners at wide f/stops with adequate sharpness, even stopped down to f/6.3 you can see that the corners are NOT 100% up to snuff...it was designed for DX Nikon, to be very sharp across a the central image circle.

The new 70-200 f/4 VR model probably does really have better optical performance than the now almost 15 year-old VR-1 model, and it has light weight and a nice skinny barrel. I personally think the f/4 lens would be the better lens to migrate forward to, especially if you go to FX Nikon and a high-MPO camera that has 36 million or more pixels. Thom Hogan's site has some comments on the various options in his review of the older 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D. I believe he gives the new f/4 VR-G model the nod for high-rez camera and for FX camera use, over the old VR-1 f/2.8 model.

The VR-1 f/2.8 lens feels and handles a lot like and f/4 lens does; the realllly slender barrel it has makes it feel very nimble, and it just does NOT have that "fat stovepipe" feel or look that every other f/2.8 lens has.

gryffinwings · Sep 6, 2015

Thanks Darrel, you have made my decision that much harder, at least I have plenty of time to decide on the lens.

Derrel · Sep 6, 2015

If you can actually "demo" the two lenses, the choice might be made more clear. But if not, look at the size, and the weight of the two lenses. My feeling is that physically smaller, lighter weight lenses balance better and carry better on half-height, lightweight bodies. The newest Nikkor lenses have been made sharper, and better optically, for the new high-rezz wunderkameras of the future. I guess it depends on how much you want to spend, and what seems like the best value/deal/cost-to-performance balance for your budget. Personally, I would pick the new f/4 model...I actually wish I owned one of those. Good luck on the upcoming orders.

gryffinwings · Sep 6, 2015

The decision will also be harder considering the possibility of being stationed in Hawaii (Navy), so it might be worth getting the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8, anybody that has anymore input this would be a great time to give it. Oh yeah and the only telephoto I have experience with is the Nikkor 55-200mm VR.

jl1975 · Sep 6, 2015

I have the D7100 and the 70-200 f4. I love it! It focuses well, has great image quality, and is not too heavy. I'm sure the 2.8 would be a fantastic lens as it is built like a tank and has the larger aperture for isolating your subjects and working in lower light situations. However, for the price difference as well as the lighter weight/smaller size of the f4, I felt like the f4 was the better choice for me. As noted above, if you can try them both that is likely your best bet.

gryffinwings · Sep 6, 2015

jl1975 said:
I have the D7100 and the 70-200 f4. I love it! It focuses well, has great image quality, and is not too heavy. I'm sure the 2.8 would be a fantastic lens as it is built like a tank and has the larger aperture for isolating your subjects and working in lower light situations. However, for the price difference as well as the lighter weight/smaller size of the f4, I felt like the f4 was the better choice for me. As noted above, if you can try them both that is likely your best bet.

Not much of a price difference when buying the Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR used (Not the VR II model) and the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 VR.

medic2230 · Sep 6, 2015

I started with the 55-300 Nikkor and was pleased with it until I got my hands on one of the 70-200 2.8 VR-1's. I had to have it. I really like the AF lock buttons on the barrel that the VR-II doesn't have. I shot both side by side and to me the focus was faster on the VR-1. Needless to say I bought one the next week and haven't looked back. I started with it on my D7000 and use it now on my D800. No regrets whatsoever. Yeah it's heavier than the other lenses but that bokeh is worth it. When you hold this lens you know it is made to last. With the tripod collar on the 2.8 you can use a Black Rapid strap to carry it with and it balances well with the D7xxx series. I also had a battery grip on mine so it weighed a little more than what you're looking at. Regardless it balances well using either of the mounts on the tripod collar with a strap. Here lately the VR-1 is really looking sweet at the prices they are going for. You will also be in the sweet spot of the lens with the crop camera.

gryffinwings · Sep 8, 2015

I really think I've settled on getting the Nikkor 70-200mm VR1 lens, just because of the f2.8 and the build quality will be good to have, especially if I get stationed in Hawaii, which I plan on photographing some surfing events.

bc_steve · Nov 1, 2015

I really appreciate being able to use my 70-200 at f2.8. Useful for depth of field and low light/fast subjects. I would not be as satisfied with an f4 lens.

Plus if you wanted to use a teleconverter it's going to work better on the f2.8.

goodguy · Nov 1, 2015

I would go with a used Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC which I think should be close to the same price of a user VRI, own this lens and LOVE it.
Used Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 OS is another good option.

If forced to choose between the 2 lenses I would go with the VRI.
You are looking a whole stop of light and thats a lot, even on FX with soft corners I would still rather get it over the f4 version which is indeed optically better but looses a whole stop of light.

jaomul · Nov 1, 2015

Having owned a d7100 if I was to drop that kind of money on a lens it would be an f2.8. While the 70-200 f4 is probably great, and I'd like any of the lenses mentioned, f4 is not very fast, and would in my opinion make more sense on the newer more capable full frame cameras, where you can compensate better with iso, and are able to isolate backgrounds better where required on the ff camera.

That nikon vr1 f2.8 seems great, as mentioned above owners like it. The flickr page shows brilliant images. Where I live at least it is possible to get the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 usd new for similar price to the nikon. While I'd say the nikon is built better and certainly looks the part, the 5 year tamron warranty would push me in that direction over buying a used lens without a warranty

JoeW · Nov 1, 2015

I'm not going to comment about the specific lens b/c my 70-200mm f2.8 is a Tamron.

Here is a consideration to think about: what are you going to be using to shoot with it? If it is lowlight (critters in a forest, basketball, football under the lights) I'd go with the f2.8 under most situations. If you're going to be doing lots of hiking and then shooting in good light, I'd look for a lens that is lighter/smaller with less weight.