Nikon 70-200 2.8 or F4

J

jpwild

Messages
750
Edit My Images
No
I'm still trying to decide between the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and F4. I've done a lot of reading, but still not sure.

My primary use will be for landscapes and will be positioned on a Gitzo tripod with RRS pano gimbal head. The camera is a D810. I will be shooting in Lake District and Scottish Highlands at dawn and dusk.

I will like to use it when I'm in the snow and various environments. The end results of my images will be large pano prints.

My concern about he 2.8 is that it's not as sharp as the f4 and that it does weight and cost more. However, I am concerned about the F4s lack of environmental protection as I rather not get dust or moisture into the lens of camera. Obviously, having 2.8 will allow for portraits, but if I wanted to venture into that direction I could get a 85mm 1.4 or 1.8g or 135 lens. I don't imagine that I will be using the lens indoors at all.

I have had a 70-200 Canon F4 IS in the past and was astounded by the sharpness and quality of the lens.
 
I would not be concerned about any sharpness difference between the lenses... that is very sample/combination sensitive and no normal human will ever see it (unless they get a dud).

For what you want, the f/4 is the best choice IMO... you have no need for f/2.8. And a rain hood is not a bad idea if out in crap, even with a sealed lens. Plus, the f/4 doesn't have the focus breathing issue when using it for headshots/portraits. BTW, the difference in DOF between f/2.8 and f/4 at minimum focus distance is entirely negligible.

IMO, the only real reason to get the f/2.8 is if you might *need* f/2.8 due to a lack of light (night time sports). Or if you're particularly hard on your gear (i.e. not likely to use a rain cover).
 
sk66 said:
I would not be concerned about any sharpness difference between the lenses... that is very sample/combination sensitive and no normal human will ever see it (unless they get a dud).

For what you want, the f/4 is the best choice IMO... you have no need for f/2.8. And a rain hood is not a bad idea if out in crap, even with a sealed lens. Plus, the f/4 doesn't have the focus breathing issue when using it for headshots/portraits. BTW, the difference in DOF between f/2.8 and f/4 at minimum focus distance is entirely negligible.

IMO, the only real reason to get the f/2.8 is if you might *need* f/2.8 due to a lack of light (night time sports). Or if you're particularly hard on your gear (i.e. not likely to use a rain cover).
Click to expand...

Agree.

I owned both. I had the f2.8 and replaced it with the f4 and I wasn't disappointed. Both great lenses but as above if you are not going to use the lens at f2.8 most of the time the f4 will be exactly what you need
 
jpwild said:
I will be shooting in Lake District and Scottish Highlands at dawn and dusk.
Click to expand...

All other things being equal I would want a lens that was able to offer maximum light.
 
You say you'll be shooting in the Lake District etc? Assuming you'll be walking for at least some of the time, then weight will be a factor. The f/4 is the sort of lens you can take with you "just in case", whereas if you take out the f/2.8 you need to be using it. I take my f/4 on holiday. Doubt I'd do that with a f/2.8 ( not that I have one).
The IQ of the f/4 is cracking. The VR is outstanding too. 1/4s handheld at 200mm. And it's a load cheaper too.

Problem is, is that is no definitive correct answer. You'll have to decide if the f/2.8 is worth the extra cash and weight. Doubt there is much IQ wise. Plenty like me, will have a view though!
 
Last edited:
For that sort of use on a tripod I would say f/2.8 is not essential as it is with sports...............
 
I also have this choice f2.8 or f4? I have owned both the vr1 and vr2 versions of the 70-200 previously and found them to be fantastic. I only sold the vr2 version to fund purchasing a 200-400 but now find I miss having the 70-200 so looking at them again. The f4 version is currently interesting me as the weight loss would be fantastic and no focus breathing issues, especially as I'm going to be using it in the 1-4m range quite a bit.

Anyone know how the 70-200 f4 works with a 1.4 TC?

I've just read this review here. From this review the f4 version does look better for you.
 
Rob. The f/4 does work with both the tc14 and tc17 on my d700. Very very hard to notice any loss of IQ. The d700 has no issues focusing at f/6.7, albeit in decent light on fast jets.
Struggling to see why anyone would want the extra bulk of a 2.8. Used the above combo at Motorsport too. No issues to report.
 
Thegreatroberto said:
Rob. The f/4 does work with both the tc14 and tc17 on my d700. Very very hard to notice any loss of IQ. The d700 has no issues focusing at f/6.7, albeit in decent light on fast jets.
Struggling to see why anyone would want the extra bulk of a 2.8. Used the above combo at Motorsport too. No issues to report.
Click to expand...

Thanks it does sound ideal. Is the AF fast? The 70-200 f2.8 vr2 was blisteringly fast. Of course the f4 is focusing at a stop slower but if it's nearly as fast then it could be good enough for me. The weight saving of the f4 over the f2.8 would be brilliant and would mean I'm more likely to carry it as an alternative to the 200-400. Being able to use it with the 1.4tc would give it a little more reach.

Sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread.
 
Last edited:
AF speed difference should be negligible in good light. I use the 2.8 because I often work in poorer light and need higher SS's... I'd rather go to wider than higher ISO once I've reached my limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top