Nikon 70-200mm f/4 G (new guy here)

[bike4fun12]

new to the photo forum, so, Hello!

I am very close to picking up the 70-200mm f/4 lens. I have looked everywhere on the web and gone to many stores for opinions on the 70-200mm f/4 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. It seems to me that the f/4 is just as sharp or sharper than the 2.8 VRII. any thoughts from people who have used both or either?

I like saving $1000 also. I am not a pro photographer. I do some photography for my work. when I work indoors, I use my 35mm and 50mm (both G lenses). plus, I have a SB-600. so no problem indoors. I love sports/wildlife photography. I am currently using the 70-300mm VR lens for that. and I have been impressed with it. but, I want something more pro lens, something that I can shoot at the biggest aperture and still get sharp images. with the 70-300mm VR, I have to stop it down to f/8 to get sharp images. that slows my shutter down and I have to bump the ISO, which I don't mind at all, but would love to keep it as low as possible. I have a D7100 now btw. I do sports/wildlife about 60% of the time. so, a big chunk. I just thought a little background to my photo history may help you guys aid me in a decision.....2.8 or 4? I don't mind third party lenses. but, from what I have read, the 70-200mm range is best from nikon. not sigma or tamron. even though the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 is $1250, I will probably skip that one.

thanks again

 

[TheLost]

The 70-200 f/4 is a sharp lens..
DxOMark - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR

Its main selling points are: Size/Weight & Price.. If size and weight are not an issue i would pick up a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 for the same price.

I've owned the Sigma 70-200's and while they are good lenses they are not as good as Nikon's (not sharp at f/2.8, low contrast... etc). The older Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is one of the slowest focusing lenses I've ever tried. The new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is much better but the same price as a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

On a DX body the older VR1 is amazing. Used they go for ~$1400 (+EX) or refurbished from Nikon ~$1700.

 

[Rafterman]

I do sports/wildlife about 60% of the time. so, a big chunk.

What type of wildlife? If you're trying to shoot birds, especially small songbirds, 200mm is REALLY going to leave you wishing you had a longer lens. Since you've got the 70-300 VR, that is nice for wildlife and sports in good lighting conditions, as I'm sure you're already aware. Are you wanting a 70-200 purely for the fast 2.8 aperture? If you want both fast AND long reach in a lens, it'll cost you some serious coin. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the 70-200 f/4, as everything I've ready about it is positive, but just think carefully about how you'll feel being limited to 200mm, that's all.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I agree with Rafterman above. I own the 18-200mm and have found it too short for shooting wildlife. I would imagine same would hold true for sports although I don't shoot sports. I picked up the 70-300mm to get the extra reach on small animals like birds and have found it to be just adequate, although I think having the 400mm range would be ideal. Make sure you actually go out and try the 200mm range before you buy.

 

[Ballistics]

The sigma 70-200mm OS is a killer lens @ half the price of a Nikon. You can find them used for around $800-900

I've never had an issue @ 2.8, but of course I could have just gotten a ridiculously good copy

 

[SeanE]

I've considered getting the 70-200 f4 too. 200mm may be too short though. The Nikon 300mm f4 is an option and its the same price. Or you could get the 70-200 f4 and use a teleconverter but then you are slowing the lens down. Sigma's 50-500 is also suppose to be good as well.

Good luck making up your mind because I can't.

 

[bike4fun12]

thanks for the reply's. when I do wildlife with my 70-300mm VR, I usually shoot at 200mm because beyond that, it softens up. the BIF shoots that I get usually is around 200-250mm. so, what I was thinking was getting a nikon TC-14 so that it would make it about 280mm on the long end at a f/5.6. from what I read, the nikon TC-14 does not take away any performance from the lens. I usually shoot at f/8 to get that sharpness with the 70-300mm VR. I've read everywhere that the 70-200mm f/4 is tack sharp wide open. far more than the 70-300mm VR. so, I wouldn't have to stop it down and I get some faster shutter speeds.

the BIF I shoot are pretty close to the waters edge. like terns, egrets and herons. so, I have never worried or wanted something beyond 300mm. Nikon lenses are very expensive, but you pay for the best. the only other lens I can really think of that does perform well is sigma's 150-500mm. it's at $1019 right bow from B&H. any thoughts on that lens?

If I go with nikon, I'm leaning more towards the f/4. the 2.8 VRI used is the same price about as the f/4 new and the f/4 has the newer VRIII which seems to be outstanding. like I said before, the new 2.8 VRII is to much money for what I like to shoot. I'm more of an outdoors shooter.

 

[Nikanon]

If you are going to shoot mostly outdoors then I would say get the 70-200 F4 over the 70-200 2.8 VRI budget wise. I have the 70-200 2.8 VRII and I can constantly get great shots hand holding at 1/20-1/30 sec. The 70-200 F4 suppose to be about the same even with VRIII so I don't think you can beat that for the price! I shoot indoors as well so I opted to get the 70-200 2.8 VRII for low light shooting.