Nikon 70-200mm f/4?

[cwcaesar]

Has anyone used the Nikon 70-200mm f/4? Reading online reviews I hear that it stacks up well against even the f/2.8 VRII. I currently have a 70-300mm, but was considering upgrading to the f/4 lineup that Nikon has put out; meaning replacing this lens with the 70-200mm f/4 and the 300mm f/4.

My main use with the 70-200 would be for portraiture, for my daughters' soccer games, and as a longer walk around lens. The 70-300 is okay for this, but I was thinking that I may get less distortion and smoother bokeh out of the 70-200 f/4.

Has anyone used this lens yet? What are your thoughts? Would you recommend this lens?

 

[shadowlands]

If you really want to see an improvement, I can't stress enough... F2.8!!!
I couldn't afford the 70-200 F2.8, so I grabbed an 80-200 F2.8 (two ring) and I'm so glad I did!!!

 

[Patrice]

There are a lot of reviews of this lens out there, from tech sites like DPreview and DXO and from user sites like Luminous Landscapes. A google of "70-200 f/4" will give enough reading material for a week.

That said, I don't own one, but have tried one in a store. Not a bad lens, seems to be worth the asking price but I won't be replacing my /2.8 with it.

I can just about predict what the responses are going to be:

"Great lens, none better - don't walk, run to the store."
"Don't waste your money - you already have the range covered."
"Have you looked into a 70-200 VR1 - same price second hand but better."
"Why not just go primes - same or less cost but faster and better IQ."
"Since you already have the range covered why not get a wide zoom now."
"I use a 50 mm AIs - it's all you need."

... need more?

I'd say go try one out and see for yourself. If you can't rent or borrow then buy one and return it if you're not happy.

 

[TheLost]

Pros:
Smaller and lighter then the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8
1/2 the price of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII
Reports say the VRIII is 'sweeeeeet' (paraphrasing)

Cons:
Isn't a f/2.8
Costs the same as a used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1
Image Quality of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII is (arguably) slightly better (sez the interwebs).

For me.. I would rather have f/2.8. I've never found the f/2.8 large or heavy and my VR is turned off all the time anyway. I wouldn't be happy with f/4 for sports (indoor/outdoor) or portraits. The older VR1 would be my choice (which in full disclosure... is a lens i own).

However.. I hear its an awesome lens and i'm sure there are quite a few happy owners.

 

[cwcaesar]

I have read reviews on this lens a lot. I do think that I would prefer the 2.8 VR1 for the price. I just read a lot of reviews that said that optically it is equal to the 2.8 VRII, and I wasn't sure if I would want that extra stop of light.

I guess I will keep saving my pennies until I can get the 2.8, or maybe I can find a used one (the only one I saw used was still $2300 though) Thanks for the help. I think that I would be better served with a nice tripod first anyway.

 

[Everglades1]

I have one but as many have said its not a f/2.8 and the price is what kept me from the f/2.8 (not a photographer by trade). However I have taken a handful of pics with it and takes beautiful pics portraits & action. Regretably I am parting out with it and have it up for sale have been a Nikon guy all my life I'm switching over to Cannon after playing with my buddies 5D Mark III.

Back on topic you cant go wrong it takes awesome pics! Good luck.

 

[bc_steve]

Has anyone used the Nikon 70-200mm f/4? Reading online reviews I hear that it stacks up well against even the f/2.8 VRII. I currently have a 70-300mm, but was considering upgrading to the f/4 lineup that Nikon has put out; meaning replacing this lens with the 70-200mm f/4 and the 300mm f/4.

My main use with the 70-200 would be for portraiture, for my daughters' soccer games, and as a longer walk around lens. The 70-300 is okay for this, but I was thinking that I may get less distortion and smoother bokeh out of the 70-200 f/4.

Has anyone used this lens yet? What are your thoughts? Would you recommend this lens?

It sounds like you have a pretty good plan. As people have mentioned below f/2.8 is awesome but expensive and the f/4 lenses will most likely meet your needs. It will still be better quality and faster than your current setup, especially at the long end.

I haven't used either lens but have heard good things. Nikon either just came out or is going to be coming out with a new 300mm f/4. I would be surprised if it wasn't awesome. If you are looking at the used market, make sure to get one that is AF-S. I've heard the older AF model is slow to focus.

 

[billydoo73]

I would get a used 70-200 f/2.8 and call it a day. It is just awesome. I'm sure the VR2 is "better," but not really. Scores are meaningless IMHO when it comes to pro level glass. But, you will notice f/2.8 versus f/4. My 2 cents.

 

[Derrel]

I own the 70-200 VR-1, a 70-300 VR, an 80-200 f/4 Ai-S, and a lot of other lenses. The thing is this: I SELDOM, as in almost NEVER, will use the 70-200 at f/2.8. The image quality is not there. THe difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is EASILY seen. I usually shoot at f/4.5 to f/6.3. There's very little practical benefit to f/2.8 unless image content is a significantly higher priority than image quality. So...if you shoot low-light, indoor or night sports, yeah, you might find f/2.8 is actually a viable aperture to use, despite the lowered quality of the image. Otherwise, f/2.8's not that much of a plus. If you need a wider aperture, the 50,85,105,and 135mm lenses easily beat the zoom for f/stop.

I've shot a good number of my son's daylight youth soccer games with the 70-300 VR....it's an "okay" lens for that use. Focus speed and sureness could be a bit better, since the f/5.6 max aperture doesn't really help a lot on AF sureness, and sometimes if the target is far outside the distance the lens is set to, the 70-300 VR will NOT initiate focus, and needs a nudge from the shooter to get the AF ring moving. I do not think that would be the case with the 70-200/4.

My expectation is that the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G is a better lens, optically, than the 70-300 VR. It's twice the price, and newer, and a constant aperture that's like two thirds of a stop faster to one full f/stop faster than the 70-300 VR is. If you want a better lens, but one still small enough and light enough for long walkabouts, I see no reason not to go ahead and check the 70-200/4 out.

Size and weight and price, as well as price/performance all come into play. It's probably worth noting that both Canon and Nikon are moving several of their professional lenses to f/4 status,. with all-new optical designs, and vibration reduction systems, and that these are not "consumer" lenses.

 

[ShootRaw]

If you are shooting Dx..Get the Sigma 50mm-150mm 2.8 OS..Great portrait lens....$849 shipped..just as sharp as the Nikon 70mm-200mm 2.8's if not sharper...

 

[Solarflare]

Have it, love it, never giving it away !!!

I wouldnt get the new 300mm f4 VR, which by the way AFAICS is in no way related to the 70-200mm f4 VR ... if at all I would consider a 400mm f4 VR - that sadly doesnt exist , so - meh.

Because 300mm is just too close to 200mm to make enough difference that carrying around the extra weight can be justified.

Also a 400mm f4 VR could be expanded to 600mm f5.6 with a 1.4 teleconverter, while again 300mm f4 only gives you 450mm f5.6

 

[MGRPhoto]

I own the 70-200 VR-1, a 70-300 VR, an 80-200 f/4 Ai-S, and a lot of other lenses. The thing is this: I SELDOM, as in almost NEVER, will use the 70-200 at f/2.8. The image quality is not there. THe difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is EASILY seen. I usually shoot at f/4.5 to f/6.3. There's very little practical benefit to f/2.8 unless image content is a significantly higher priority than image quality. So...if you shoot low-light, indoor or night sports, yeah, you might find f/2.8 is actually a viable aperture to use, despite the lowered quality of the image. Otherwise, f/2.8's not that much of a plus. If you need a wider aperture, the 50,85,105,and 135mm lenses easily beat the zoom for f/stop.

I've shot a good number of my son's daylight youth soccer games with the 70-300 VR....it's an "okay" lens for that use. Focus speed and sureness could be a bit better, since the f/5.6 max aperture doesn't really help a lot on AF sureness, and sometimes if the target is far outside the distance the lens is set to, the 70-300 VR will NOT initiate focus, and needs a nudge from the shooter to get the AF ring moving. I do not think that would be the case with the 70-200/4.

My expectation is that the 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G is a better lens, optically, than the 70-300 VR. It's twice the price, and newer, and a constant aperture that's like two thirds of a stop faster to one full f/stop faster than the 70-300 VR is. If you want a better lens, but one still small enough and light enough for long walkabouts, I see no reason not to go ahead and check the 70-200/4 out.

Size and weight and price, as well as price/performance all come into play. It's probably worth noting that both Canon and Nikon are moving several of their professional lenses to f/4 status,. with all-new optical designs, and vibration reduction systems, and that these are not "consumer" lenses.

You sure seem to hate on the 70-200mm VR1 a lot. Bottom line is most people don't have the issues you've had with it and it's still one of the best lenses available in it's price range (2nd hand). The Tamron Di VC might be about the same price and a little better optically according the charts and numbers but it's nothing you're going to see in your real world usage (maybe very minor things at 100%) and the VR1 AF performance still trounces the Tamron.

OP said his main uses would be portraiture and soccer games... The Tamron Di VC and a 2nd hand VR1 would be a better option than the f4 for portraiture while the VR1 and f4 would be a better option for soccer games. To me it seems like a 2nd hand VR1 is a better compromise for the OP's intended usage. If 2nd hand isn't an option I'd probably go for the Tamron Di VC over the f4. I'd take the AF performance hit for the extra stop.

 

[bigal1000]

If you are shooting Dx..Get the Sigma 50mm-150mm 2.8 OS..Great portrait lens....$849 shipped..just as sharp as the Nikon 70mm-200mm 2.8's if not sharper...

How did you come to that conclusion,have you owned both or did you read that online ??

 

[TheLost]

If you are shooting Dx..Get the Sigma 50mm-150mm 2.8 OS..Great portrait lens....$849 shipped..just as sharp as the Nikon 70mm-200mm 2.8's if not sharper...

How did you come to that conclusion,have you owned both or did you read that online ??

Most of these comments come from people justifying THEIR purchase, yet they have never used the Nikon lens.

I've used both... and in the end i bought the Nikon.

 

[Derrel]

You sure seem to hate on the 70-200mm VR1 a lot. Bottom line is most people don't have the issues you've had with it and it's still one of the best lenses available in it's price range (2nd hand)./QUOTE]

No, I don't "hate on the 70-200 VR1 a lot". I've owned the lens for over a decade now. It was SPECTACULAR on the 4.2 to 6 megapixel d-slrs that were state of the art when it was released. It was and still is an excellent lens on my Nikon D2x back in the 2005 era, whenh 12.2 MP was the top dog in Nikon's pack. However in 2007, when the D3 was announced, professionals using the skinny-barreled- DX-optimized 70-200 VR1 lens noticed that the corners of the frame were not all that sharp. When the D3x was released in 2009, the weaknesses of the VR1 lens design were fully realized; the corners are chit until the lens is stopped wayyyyyyy down. I shoot it on the D3x currently, and while it's okay, as a landscape lens, it's OBVIOUS that the corners and the zonal area are both WEAK...fuzzy...CRAPPY resolving power...the lens is not good enough for the new, 24MP FF bodies. If you shoot crop-body, the weak corners are not imaged.

I do think that the bokeh of the lens is wonderful; it's a beautiful imager on APS-C for portraiture. And if focuses VERY well, and fast on the D2x. It's one of the best "action" zoom lenses on the D2x.

I'm not "most people". Neither is Bjorn Rorslett, one of the world's foremost Nikon lens authorities. Let's see what he has to say about this lens: Zoom Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount: Telephoto

"The centre sharpness is excellent even on the D3, but the tendency for the corners lacking critical sharpness when the lens is focused towards infinity at its longer end is unexpected and troublesome. For landscapes at 200 mm, you need to stop down way too far to get the corners just barely acceptable, even to f/22 in some cases. I think the covering power of this slim design simply is not adequate for a good performance across the FX frame, at least toward the 200mm setting. For PJ style work or for studio and portraiture, this flaw is tolerable, but not for landscapes. Nikon really needs to come up with a Mk. II model of this general-purpose zoom lens."