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

I just bought the 2.8 VRII, so I've no real interest personally. But I know I would have loved this last year when I didn't have the funds for the 2.8.

It will have to be a lot cheaper, and as you say, a bit lighter too. If so, it'll sell like hot cakes on a winter's eve.
 
I would imagine less. It still has the likes of the sigma 2.8 OS to contend with. And the 80-200 2.8 still sells. Of course this will have a new version of VR, and they will hype that to the hilt.
 
They have also come down in price a lot. Nikon will have to be aggressive with this one. I wouldn't buy until it's out a few months, see D600.
 
I imagine this will be released at about £1,400 and come down to £1,100 in time but really to make it viable compared to the f2.8 version it really need to be under £1k.

I can see it being a lens that many will want but only at the right price as a considerable saving against the f2.8 version.
 
It would want to be extremely good for that money. I bought the VRII 2.8 the other week,brand new, for £1400 from Holland, via ebay. Arrived within a week.
 
straycat said:
unless its a lot cheaper and lighter is there a point to it?
Click to expand...

Historically f/4 glass is sharper than the f/2.8 equivalent.

Might be tempted when these hit myself but I still have a lot of love for my Siggy.
 
When a 2.8 is stopped down to f/4, it's probably as sharp if not sharper, it's nice to have the wider option. Of course, it comes with a price.

It's been long requested of Nikon to bring out an f/4 though, so I would imagine/predict it will be an excellent lens. It'll be interesting to see what this new VR holds too.
 
Cagey75 said:
When a 2.8 is stopped down to f/4, it's probably as sharp if not sharper, it's nice to have the wider option. Of course, it comes with a price.

It's been long requested of Nikon to bring out an f/4 though, so I would imagine/predict it will be an excellent lens. It'll be interesting to see what this new VR holds too.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect in many cases.

Historically f/4 versions have been sharper f/2.8 especially with older Nikon glass.

The Canon f/4 70-200 was long regarded as sharper than the f/2.8 at f/4 until they updated the f/2.8. This is often the case.
 
Well, maybe so, proof/links would be good. I've never once heard that before at least.

Either way, this lens won't be for me. It's a year too late.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Well, maybe so, proof/links would be good. I've never once heard that before at least.

Either way, this lens won't be for me. It's a year too late.
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered to be honest try this.

http://biSPAM/TuPYjX
 
Why bring it up in the first place then?

Back on topic then ...
 
Yeah whatever SF, take your stirring elsewhere please. I didn't say anything incorrect, you stated a non-fact you couldn't back up, instead saying you couldn't be bothered. In other words, had no proof whatsover to back up your statement. I also did not say this wasn't the case, I said "probably". Nowhere online does anyone prove an f/4 lens is any sharper than a 2.8 stopped down. You highlighted my post like I'd told a lie or something.
 
Last edited:
Jesus, will you two just find a hotel room, ffs.
 
The23rdman said:
Jesus, will you two just find a hotel room, ffs.
Click to expand...

Please post on topic and don't add to the spam, cheers ;) I created this thread for others in case they hadn't heard about it. I've already said it's not for me, so away you go ... chat about the lens - I note you haven't actually done so yet ...
 
Last edited:
I'm very happy they're bringing it out. Hope it's priced appropriately. There you go. ;)
 
Why not just say that in the first place? ;) It will be good, and I may well be miffed I didn't wait, if it is priced nice and low. But then I think for gigs, f/4 is never enough. And I do shoot gigs now and then. I'll like having the 2.8 in those cases. Outdoors ... wouldn't matter much. Unless you shoot sports maybe.
 
Is there any advance information on pricing/ dimensions of the f/4 ?
 
Last edited:
Both my Canon 70-200mm F4 versions (IS and Non IS) were sharper at F4 than my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS (Mk1) was at F4.
 
I'm very interested in this... It's one of the big holes in Nikons lens lineup IMO, however it needs to be priced right.

I'm assuming it will be about the same size and weight as the Canon version which will be good. Price wise it'll have to have an RRP of around £1000, with a selling price of around £1000 max - the Canon sells for £900 and Nikon don't have the benefit of a non IS/VR lens of lesser price but same quality to fall back on. I'm guessing the RRP will be nearer £1400 however, way too expensive for me. If that's the case then I'm going to have to lump the size of the f/2.8 and get that used (around £950), although that including a TC will help plug another big hole Nikon have... No 300 f/4 VR...

EDIT: Any news on what the new Nikon VR will bring to the table? Having used the VI on the 70-300 for a few months now it certainly doesn't seem to stack up against the older VR of my Canon lenses so an a significant update would be good.
 
Last edited:
I think this lens is too long overdue and no doubt Nikon will release it at a rip off scandalous price due to new VR. Why on earth is there constant incessant yapping and bitching on this forum? Tommy and cagey both your pictures are **** ffs lol
 
Well, since mine are mostly of kids these days, that says more about you ;) It's pretty clear who came in to try ruin this thread for no reason.

I wish you 2 would just grow up.



No word of pricing yet. If it's over a grand, many will say nope.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why range start is 70mm? What lens is it supposed to "match" with?

A 120-300mm f/4 on the other hand...
Kick_Can.gif




But of course maybe I'm being a bit selfish now...
biggrin1.gif
 
Because a lot of people have a 24-70, whether it's the Nikon or a third party offering. It makes perfect sense. A 70-200 f/4 has long been sought after, Canon have had them for years.
 
Additionally, most of Nikon's telephoto zooms in that range have always been 70, 75 or 80mm on the short end - long history of them.
 
I think it's a good move,if Nikon want to sell the D600 in large numbers,it need lens that will sell to the buyer of it.

Plus Canon seem to have no problem selling their 70-200 F 4 :)
 
What with the excellent noise handling of the current Nikon pro bodies, I can see why this may appeal as shooting at F4 does give you a little extra margin for error and provides a slightly more cost effective solution as the 24-70 is usually the main workhorse for those [wedding] photographers who use zooms.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Both my Canon 70-200mm F4 versions (IS and Non IS) were sharper at F4 than my Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS (Mk1) was at F4.
Click to expand...

It couldn't possibly be mate. ;)

Even though you have experience of using them all and almost all reviews etc. say the same thing Cagey75 says that all 2.8's are sharper so that must be the case. :lol:
 
Soda Farl said:
It couldn't possibly be mate. ;)

Even though you have experience of using them all and almost all reviews etc. say the same thing Cagey75 says that all 2.8's are sharper so that must be the case. :lol:
Click to expand...

Seriously getting boring now!

Back on track. I can see this lens doing well for Nikon. They seem to be making a concerted effort to fill their line up with affordable, quality full frame lenses. Last year (or was it the year before?) we had the new 28, 50 and 85mm 1.8g primes. Now we've had the 24-85 D600 kit lens and it looks like we'll be getting a 70-200 f/4 as well. Ticking plenty of boxes there. I can't personally see myself buying one but I definitely would have been interested a year or so ago. I now feel like I've done the 70-200 thing and got a bit fed up of the weight that I was lugging around, let's hope this one is a bit lighter than the norm.
 
gad-westy said:
Seriously getting boring now!

Back on track. I can see this lens doing well for Nikon. They seem to be making a concerted effort to fill their line up with affordable, quality full frame lenses. Last year (or was it the year before?) we had the new 28, 50 and 85mm 1.8g primes. Now we've had the 24-85 D600 kit lens and it looks like we'll be getting a 70-200 f/4 as well. Ticking plenty of boxes there. I can't personally see myself buying one but I definitely would have been interested a year or so ago. I now feel like I've done the 70-200 thing and got a bit fed up of the weight that I was lugging around, let's hope this one is a bit lighter than the norm.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I have not put my point of view across very well.

There is a fair chance that the new lens will be shaper than the 2.8 making it an attractive option to people not only looking to save money but some may even switch due to performance difference if Nikon get this lens right. Personally I could get away with f/4 and if this lens is less than a grand I would have a serious think about buying one.
 
Cagey75 said:
Well, since mine are mostly of kids these days, that says more about you ;) It's pretty clear who came in to try ruin this thread for no reason.

I wish you 2 would just grow up.



No word of pricing yet. If it's over a grand, many will say nope.
Click to expand...

TonyNI said:
A joke with a jag so to speak lol
Click to expand...

Soda Farl said:
It couldn't possibly be mate. ;)

Even though you have experience of using them all and almost all reviews etc. say the same thing Cagey75 says that all 2.8's are sharper so that must be the case. :lol:
Click to expand...

Next one to post with the merest hint of rudeness, in this thread or any other, gets a weeks holiday.

This is getting beyond a joke. :bang:
 
Personally I'm glad to see Nikon bring this lens out. It's been a noticeable hole in their line up compared with Canon's range.

But at the rumoured prices personally I'd be torn between getting this one or the f2.8 VR1 from eBay for the additional stop.

I guess ultimately it will come down to how good the new lens really is. There is certainly high expectations. Personally the extra stop isn't a biggie nowadays but if the price is the same then I'd rather have it than not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top