nikon 70-200 f4!!

err...

Confusing post is confusing.
 
Is this supposed to be news? :D

I fancy one of these when I sell on my VRII though. For the lighter weight mostly.
 
Hi,

It's a completely new design lens unlike the excellent 70-200mm f2.8 VRIi.
Smaller and lighter and great performance if you don't need the extra stops. (still metal)
It has the new generation VRIII system which allows 5 stops of compensation.

They are retailing for about £1050 vs £1550 for the f2.8 version.

I'm not that into photography at the moment but if my skills and enthusiasm picks up I could see myself getting one 2nd in a year or two.

All the reviews have been great but it comes down to if you can live with f4.0 vs f2.8 and need 5 stops VR.

New 70-200 f4.0 or a secondhand f2.8, it's a tuff choice.

Riz :)
 
gramps said:
Can't help thinking that it'll have to be a great bit of kit to match the VRII, my guess is it'll always be a compromise.
Click to expand...

From all the reviews it's just as good end to end IQ and sharpness wise but it's no f2.8.
If your mainly going to shoot outdoors with plenty of light it will be fine. It also doesn't suffer from focus breathing like the f2.8.

So it's just as good at f4.0 compared to the older lens, lighter, smaller, VRIII and £500 cheaper.

Riz :)
 
Hmm, the price of the lens will drop tho as it is in the infancy.

I like the sound if it. Probably will get one in due course.

Nikon should produce more lens with f4 like canon. Good move on their part.
 
ricky1980 said:
Hmm, the price of the lens will drop tho as it is in the infancy.

I like the sound if it. Probably will get one in due course.

Nikon should produce more lens with f4 like canon. Good move on their part.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems to be their policy to to provide alternatives to the high end professional lenses. 16-35, 24-120, 200-400 and 70-200 all f4 full frame lenses.
 
I don't really see what this lens offers apart from the lighter weight. :thinking:

Surely considering the costs in terms of image quality a better option would be glass from the third party manufacturers. Until very recently I had the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 O.S. It was superb when stopped down to f/4 I would be hard pressed to show a difference against the Nikon vr2 I now own and would still give you the option of shooting at f/2.8. Used versions of the Sigma can be picked up for very decent money and even new they are a lot cheaper than the f/4 Nikon not even accounting for the extra you have to pay for the tripod collar, which comes with the Sigma.
 
The weight is the main advantage... If you're walking around/hiking then half the weight and size is a massive difference,. Not everyone wants to carry round a dedicated camera bag all the time!

If you're a car photographer or wedding tog then it's probably not for you.
 
Amp34 said:
The weight is the main advantage... If you're walking around/hiking then half the weight and size is a massive difference,. Not everyone wants to carry round a dedicated camera bag all the time!

If you're a car photographer or wedding tog then it's probably not for you.
Click to expand...

If weight is the only advantage then why not just get the 70-300vr?

Light weight, very sharp from 70mm-200mm and gives you the advantage of the additional focal length.
 
Soda Farl said:
If weight is the only advantage then why not just get the 70-300vr?

Light weight, very sharp from 70mm-200mm and gives you the advantage of the additional focal length.
Click to expand...

70-300 is not in the same class at all.

New 70-200 f/4 Nikon looks fantastic, just like the similar Canon version. Barely half the weight of the 2.8, much cheaper, just as sharp, and the point made above about focus breathing is true and basically most 70-200s are sub-150mm at closest focus position - Nikon 2.8, Sigma 2.8 OS, Tamron 2.8 VC.

Notable exceptions are the Canons and this new f/4 Nikon that focus breathes significantly less, though they still do it a bit.
 
I think it's great that Nikon has produced this lens. For me it was a big miss. More and more people are getting into photography for leisure/hobby etc. and the weight/price of the f2.8 simply is too much. Unfortunately the release price is a bit too high when compared with both third party lenses, it's own f2.8 and also the Canon 70-200 f4.

I'm sure in time the price will drop just like the D600 price has. Right now the only buyers I can think of for this lens would be:

1) Nikon purists
2) Desperate for a telezoom but can't afford the VR2
3) Unwilling to consider 2nd hand lenses.

But once the price drops to say around what the Canon equiv is going for then this lens I think will fly off the shelves.
 
gramps said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...

a) Everybody knows.

b) Since when did Nikon introduce a duff pro-spec lens?

c) If you don't believe the reviews, Nikon's MTFs don't lie. f/4 version here http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/af-s_70-200mmf_4g_ed_vr/index.htm and f/2.8 here http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/telephotozoom/af-s_70-200mmf_28g_vr2/index.htm New f/4 lens is exceptionally sharp, especially at the long end which is often the weaker focal length.
 
a) No they don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked :)
b) Pro-spec Nikon isn't going to be "duff" but are you saying that all Nikon pro-spec lenses are equally sharp?
c) I'm not convinced by the 1st link and don't see any images in your 2nd link.
 
I imagine it'll be slightly better optically than the 70-300 VR? maybe not by much, but it has that f/4 right through. Not sure what the 70-300 is at 200mm? f/5 perhaps?Ok, not much between them really. And surprisingly the 70-200 f4 is only 100g heavier than the 70-300.

You don't need a collar for this lens, as it's light enough for an FX camera to hold up without strain.
 
Yup don't think a collar is needed with this lens.
I'm still getting used to all my recently bought Nikon kit so I'm going to avoid splashing out for a top end telephoto.
My 70-300mm VR seems to be ok so far.
Worked out need to shoot f8.0 @ 300mm to get the best at around 1000th.

From all the reviews the 70-300 VR is not bad.

Riz :)
 
gramps said:
a) No they don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked :)
b) Pro-spec Nikon isn't going to be "duff" but are you saying that all Nikon pro-spec lenses are equally sharp?
c) I'm not convinced by the 1st link and don't see any images in your 2nd link.
Click to expand...

It's the MTF graphs you're supposed to be looking at ;)
 
Soda Farl said:
If weight is the only advantage then why not just get the 70-300vr?

Light weight, very sharp from 70mm-200mm and gives you the advantage of the additional focal length.
Click to expand...

Colours, build quality, aperture, weather proofing, focus speed... Massive differences!

The same reasons many people choose the more expensive Canon 70-200 f/4 over the 70-300
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
a) No they don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked :)
b) Pro-spec Nikon isn't going to be "duff" but are you saying that all Nikon pro-spec lenses are equally sharp?
c) I'm not convinced by the 1st link and don't see any images in your 2nd link.
Click to expand...

The Nikon f/4 is about as sharp as the f/2.8 VR II. You'd be splitting hairs arguing either way. It is easier to correct for an f/4 lens though so it isn't surprising.
 
I've seen some reviewers point out that it suffers moderate distortion at the 200mm end, and suffers from more CA - otherwise, it's as sharp, and even sharper in the corners than it's big bro' - ideal for landscape ... where you won't be needing 2.8, and will appreciate the much lighter weight in the bag.
 
Oh definitely no arguenent this lens is better than 70-300vr. Different kind of targeted market. 70-300 is for starter and this one is aimed for hobbists and enthusiasts.

Quality of built would be different the glass elements would be massively different. As someone pointed out the claim VR stop is 5 so much better in build gadgetry as well.

When the price come down it will probably be the lens of choice for most people other than those who needs 2.8
 
Well, my VRII 2.8 has just left the building. Got pretty much what i paid for it, if I feel the need for a 70-200 in future I'll be getting this one.
 
Phil Young said:
That really is stupid. How can you charge £150 for a tripod collar!?!?
Click to expand...
Canon is the same, http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-canon-lens-tripod-mount-ring-a-ii-w/p1018072 That's their f4 collar: £125.95. Plus shipping.

Soda Farl said:
I don't really see what this lens offers apart from the lighter weight. :thinking:
Click to expand...

Based on RRP: £986.99 in your wallet. Yes the 2.8 is less than RRP now, but the f4's price will probably drop to about 850 ish given 6-12 months so call it about £800, less if you want a collar.
 
If I would be going for 70-200 then I would go for f4 for my d800.


Still am thinking about old 70-210 f4. Need to check if it is ant good nie sharp
 
And to make things worse, Tokina are releasing an f4 70-200 with image stabilisation. Price expected to be "less than the Nikon". Though looks like no collar at all.
 
maninsuitcase said:
And to make things worse, Tokina are releasing an f4 70-200 with image stabilisation. Price expected to be "less than the Nikon". Though looks like no collar at all.
Click to expand...

but when...it is almost a year since we saw first signs of it...
 
It would have to be a lot cheaper than the Nikon and get great reviews, for anyone to consider I would think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top