Does anyone have the Nikon 70-200 f4

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
21,116
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a lens under consideration. Have had 70-200 2.8 as well as the 80-200. Both were very good, great IQ, but need something a bit lighter.

Weight doesnt normally affect me, but my kit bag is steadily getting bigger - at an airshow I will probably have a D300, D700, 300mm f4 and maybe a 24-70 or a prime. The 70-200 will be useful to me, maybe for the odd paid shoot, but mainly as a personal lens. With all my other lenses, I am thinking the 70-200 f4 may give me the quality i need but not the weight.
 
Does look good. Uncle Ken says some good things too... I would love to hear from 'real' users too. Trouble is that its £1k new, so more than a used 2.8, and am not sure i can justify that for occasional use, and think a prime like a 180mm may be better.
 
I've got it. Very nice lens, as you'd expect, given that there was no point Nikon even bothering with it unless they made it at least comparable to the excellent Canon equivalent. Sharp, good construction, good ergonomics, effective VR. And expensive to buy!
 
cambsno said:
This is a lens under consideration. Have had 70-200 2.8 as well as the 80-200. Both were very good, great IQ, but need something a bit lighter.

Weight doesnt normally affect me, but my kit bag is steadily getting bigger - at an airshow I will probably have a D300, D700, 300mm f4 and maybe a 24-70 or a prime. The 70-200 will be useful to me, maybe for the odd paid shoot, but mainly as a personal lens. With all my other lenses, I am thinking the 70-200 f4 may give me the quality i need but not the weight.
Click to expand...

Bit of a surprise more people don't seem to have these, they seem to review well. I guess the cost of one vs the cost of an f/2.8 lens rules them out for most.

Scores well on DxOMark here is a comparison of the Nikon 70-200's
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...ssional-70-200mm-justify-its-price/Comparison
 
I was thinking about one of these after taking my photography gear on a flight recently. Having 2 cropped dslrs, a 300 f4, 12-24 f4 and wanting to take a zoom too I had to comprise. Due to weigh I had to take a 70-300 vr instead of the 70-200 vr1. The smaller size and weight of the 70-300 was a nice change and I thinking about changing during the trip. I can see the benefits of the smaller size and weight, the loss of a stop isn't too bad as I very rarely, if ever use f2.8. I bought the f2.8 for the faster focus speed over the 70-300 vr.

The only thing that's stopping me at present is the thought that selling both my 70-200 and 70-300 would buy the lens but I would have to pay extra for the tripod foot. I know you don't really need the tripod foot due to the weight but it would balance better on the tripod and hang better on the sling strap I use. Having the 70-300 hanging from the camera was a little annoying at times, especially when I worried about it touching the ground when kneeling.

The f4 version is supposed to be a good lens and quite sharp too. If I didn't have a 70-200 the choice would probably be a little easier if I wanted new its £1k compared to £1.5k, but used there is not much difference. If you want a light option then its either a 70-200 f4 or 70-300 vr, and there is only one winner there if you have the money.
 
Last edited:
The new f4 70-200 outguns the VR2. Not surprising giving it is a newer design. I'd be interested to try one out at some point. Canon has some really nice f4 designs in this range hopefully the nikon variant goes down to similar prices
 
Doesn't look much in it at all with the 2.8 VRII and the f/4 to my eye. Photozone have the VRII 2.8 higher in terms of MTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top