Nikon 70-200mm vs Nikon 80-200mm

[fjrabon]

Well if your budget can't stretch to a 2.8 then a high quality 4 will run it close. I get bored with people saying as if they are some kind of wonder photographer "I shot this wide open at 2.8". Whoopie do. Shoot at the right aperture for the shot, rather than willie waving! I rarely shoot wide open, and I have no shame is saying so.

My point was that an f/4 lens doesn't compete with an f/2.8 lens. If you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8. I can flat out tell you, I couldn't do my job with a 70-200 f/4 to the levels that are expected. You can't shoot high school football effectively with an f/4 tele.

The other thing about an f/2.8 is that if you can get away with f/4, then you can add a teleconverter onto your 70-200 and get even more reach while still shooting at f/4.

 

[thereyougo!]

Well if your budget can't stretch to a 2.8 then a high quality 4 will run it close. I get bored with people saying as if they are some kind of wonder photographer "I shot this wide open at 2.8". Whoopie do. Shoot at the right aperture for the shot, rather than willie waving! I rarely shoot wide open, and I have no shame is saying so.

My point was that an f/4 lens doesn't compete with an f/2.8 lens. If you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8. I can flat out tell you, I couldn't do my job with a 70-200 f/4 to the levels that are expected. You can't shoot high school football effectively with an f/4 tele.





The other thing about an f/2.8 is that if you can get away with f/4, then you can add a teleconverter onto your 70-200 and get even more reach while still shooting at f/4.

This is with a 1.7 converter on a 300 f/4 wide open at f/6.7. Looks good enough to me:


Cardiff-trains by singingsnapper, on Flickr



I'm not having a go at you in particular. The f/4 isn't out yet. It could be stellar. I will certainly consider it. There is way too much snobbery in lenses, just as there is in wine, music and whatever hobby you choose (all of these are mine). Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something that is cheaper is necessarily​ worse than something else. Marketing exists to get you to part with more money than you might otherwise. Judge the f/4 when it comes out

I hate the formatting of this forum. You go into a quote and it puts you right in the middle of the quoted words not at the end. GGGGRRR

 

[fjrabon]

Well if your budget can't stretch to a 2.8 then a high quality 4 will run it close. I get bored with people saying as if they are some kind of wonder photographer "I shot this wide open at 2.8". Whoopie do. Shoot at the right aperture for the shot, rather than willie waving! I rarely shoot wide open, and I have no shame is saying so.

My point was that an f/4 lens doesn't compete with an f/2.8 lens. If you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8. I can flat out tell you, I couldn't do my job with a 70-200 f/4 to the levels that are expected. You can't shoot high school football effectively with an f/4 tele.



The other thing about an f/2.8 is that if you can get away with f/4, then you can add a teleconverter onto your 70-200 and get even more reach while still shooting at f/4.

I'm not having a go at you in particular. The f/4 isn't out yet. It could be stellar. I will certainly consider it. There is way too much snobbery in lenses, just as there is in wine, music and whatever hobby you choose (all of these are mine). Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something that is cheaper is necessarily​ worse than something else. Marketing exists to get you to part with more money than is necessary. Jusge the f/4 when it comes out

I still think you're missing my point. an f/4 v. an f/2.8 isn't necessarily about better or worse. It's about whether or not you need that extra stop of light. The new f/4 could optically blow away the current 70-200 f/2.8, but be completely unusable to a large swath of people who use mid range tele zooms. A lot of mid range tele zooms are bought by sports photographers and live music photographers. f/4 doesn't help those people.

If you don't need f/2.8 and f/4 is fine, then by all means, sure, go ahead and get an f/4. They're mostly stellar optically. But people don't usually by an f/2.8 because it's optically better or worse than an f/4, they usually by them because sometimes they need an extra stop of light.