Nikon 70-200 f/4 to be announced this week

As I said already, I was only guessing, as to why it's so light. I bet it's not all steel, and it turns out it's not weather sealed. Or so I'm hearing around.
 
fracster said:
I`m really struggling to see who would actually buy this over a 2.8?
Click to expand...

Someone who goes walking and wild camping for several days at a time and needs to carry other things with them. When all your camping equipment weighs in 6-8kg a 1.4kg lens is pretty damn heavy relative.

On the other hand with no weather sealing and at the price it currently is I'd be interested to see how well it takes a TC and how that compares to the f/2.8 and the 300 f/4 (which doesn't have VR).

Best lightweight long lens option for Nikon. With Canon it would be a no brainer (the 300 f/4 IS (1.2kg) and possibly a 1.4TC) but with Nikon it's a lot harder. Do you go with an older, non VR 300 f/4 at 1.44kg, a 70-200 f/2.8 (1.44kg) with 2xTC or a 70-200 f/4 (850g) with a 1.4TC?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Ya big softies, at this years Super League Grand Final after the game getting presentation pics i was using a Nikon D3S with a 400mm f/2.8 and TC-14E attached on a pod, then on the black rapid i had another D3S with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and kenko 1.4 attached along with a gripped D700 and Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR attached and slung from the chest strap in a bag was a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Click to expand...

Now try carrying that for several days, with several days worth of food, water and a tent... ;):LOL:
 
I don't care about VR, so the f4 works well.

I don't camp either , so don't really care about that argument either.but you do, so I can see why it may appeal.
 
It's one of my main reasons for wanting light equipment (although the D7000 and 17-55 isn't exactly light...). A decent lightweight long lens is still something I need to decide on. Tempting to get the non VR 300 f/4 (had the Canon version for a couple of years) but the VR would be very useful as I only take a very short tripod with me... The 70-300 just doesn't cut it unfortunately, fine in good light but wide open at 300mm it's pretty poor and the focus speed is pretty slow. The VR isn't brilliant either compared to the Canon version (on the 75-300 IS), I'd hope the more expensive kit has better VR...
 
Last edited:
1540g vs. 850g

Almost half the weight. You can't argue with that. If it's optically as good as the 2.8VRII and you don't need the speed, you will save a few hundred quid. Why not wait for a real lens test to be published.. one that actually uses real full res images of a D800 or something... then decide. It may be £1100 because it's awesome. It may even outperform the 2.8VRII for all we know.
 
Pookeyhead said:
1540g vs. 850g

Almost half the weight. You can't argue with that. If it's optically as good as the 2.8VRII and you don't need the speed, you will save a few hundred quid. Why not wait for a real lens test to be published.. one that actually uses real full res images of a D800 or something... then decide. It may be £1100 because it's awesome. It may even outperform the 2.8VRII for all we know.
Click to expand...

Yes, the test results will be interesting.
Is this lens compatible with any of the Nikon teleconverters?
 
The MTF charts indicate that it should be a super sharp lens.

However I already have the 70-300VR, so the F/4 would give me around 1 stop over my 70-300VR but I would lose 100mm at the long end.

For me the upgrade path would still be to go to the F/2.8.
 
gad-westy said:
F/8 auto focus I'm guessing, though I'd have thought that will only apply to using the 2x.
Click to expand...
Ah, becomes clear now,I always forget about the 2x TC.The others,1.4 and 1.7 all AF on D200/300/700.

My mistake.
 
redddraggon said:
The MTF charts indicate that it should be a super sharp lens.

However I already have the 70-300VR, so the F/4 would give me around 1 stop over my 70-300VR but I would lose 100mm at the long end.

For me the upgrade path would still be to go to the F/2.8.
Click to expand...

Get a 1.4TC and that problem would be mostly solved. If the f/4 is anything like the Canon then it will be significantly better than the 70-300 in more ways than just aperture and sharpness.
 
Amp34 said:
Get a 1.4TC and that problem would be mostly solved. If the f/4 is anything like the Canon then it will be significantly better than the 70-300 in more ways than just aperture and sharpness.
Click to expand...

Cost is also a consideration, my 70-300 cost £350 new, this new 70-200 and a TC are likely to cost nearly 4 times that much.

The lens would have to be costing sub £800 for me to consider it really, and even then I'd probably rather pick up a f/2.8 VR1 for little more than that.
 
Someone on Fred Miranda has used one, some sample images and thoughts HERE

Looks like it was only available to him for a few hours, but some high res samples are available if you want a look (y)
 
200mm, 1/20 sec looks good. Be interesting to see what the reviewers make of it when they put it through its paces.
 
Looks like a nice, compact offering. Vignetting is noticeable, but not a problem and it looks sharp at f/4. I suppose effectiveness of VR is peculiar to the situation and the user...
 
I'm looking into getting this and would be interested in hearing the opinions of anyone who has used it.

I've wanted a 70-200mm for ages... but they are pretty expensive, or at least the Nikon lenses are. I looked at third-party lenses too, the Sigma being my other option. In all honesty though, I'd take the lower weight of the f4 over the f2.8 if I don't have to compromise on quality. I wouldn't be using it with a T/C as I've got a longer telephoto for when I need more reach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top