DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Nikon releases 70-200 F4 lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/25/2012 11:39:23 AM · #1
70-200 F4 VR

It had been one of my frustrations that Nikon had no quality constant aperture zooms for the range between iffy consumer stuff and professional, so it's nice to see this. Nikon claims 5 stops for VR.
At this point, it's not something I'd get, but it's great news for somebody who still uses kit lenses and doesn't want to step up to a 70-200 2.8. Wish it were sealed and included a tripod collar, but such is life. It is pretty damn lightweight.
 10/25/2012 11:46:08 AM · #2
The marketing is a bit misleading though:

"An essential lens for low light or fast action sequences. "

Clearly, this is not an f2.8 no matter how much VR/IS you throw at the problem, still, 5 stops of VR is pretty awesome.
 10/25/2012 11:50:50 AM · #3
It's for Low light OR Fast action, not low-light action ;0

But yeah, I agree. In some ways though, a constant F4 that will likely be sharper at f4 than cheaper offerings at F5.6 or even likely 7.1 does mean quite an improvement from the consumer stuff though, but it definitely does try to bill itself as "does the stuff the big brother does!" which admittedly isn't true. I'll be curious to see if the 5 stops pans out or not after testing, but it is pretty remarkable at this point.
 10/25/2012 11:58:45 AM · #4
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)
 10/25/2012 12:03:05 PM · #5
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....
 10/25/2012 12:10:05 PM · #6
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


But 80-200 2.8 has not VR, am I right?
 10/25/2012 12:17:28 PM · #7
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


But 80-200 2.8 has not VR, am I right?

Yep...but I have rarely if ever found a situation where I want to shoot below 1/200th of second for a shoot at 200mm anyway, so VR really doesnt add much other than cost.
 10/25/2012 12:21:23 PM · #8
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


But 80-200 2.8 has not VR, am I right?

Yep...but I have rarely if ever found a situation where I want to shoot below 1/200th of second for a shoot at 200mm anyway, so VR really doesnt add much other than cost.


I am not confortable shooting without VR at those focal lengths, even if I can say I am quite frozen when shooting (I work as a video operator and it helps me a lot). Maybe you're more than frozen... maybe a stone? :D
 10/25/2012 12:29:06 PM · #9
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


But 80-200 2.8 has not VR, am I right?

Yep...but I have rarely if ever found a situation where I want to shoot below 1/200th of second for a shoot at 200mm anyway, so VR really doesnt add much other than cost.


It depends upon your shooting habits. There are definitely times where it could be nice- for me, shooting wildlife in the dawn/dusk times means low light, and a slower shutter means not cranking my ISO so high to capture a slowly moving animal. It would also work well for balancing ambient for portraits under the same conditions. But it's not something everybody will use regardless. I've only got one VR lens and I use it probably the least of all my others, so I adapt my shooting style to accommodate that. Do you NEED it? Maybe, depends. Is it an overpriced addition? Depends if it's of use to you. If you never shoot in low light handheld, then it probably isn't much use. Using that lens with some extension tubes could be some good macro fun though, for instance.
 10/25/2012 12:33:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Alexkc:
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


But 80-200 2.8 has not VR, am I right?

Yep...but I have rarely if ever found a situation where I want to shoot below 1/200th of second for a shoot at 200mm anyway, so VR really doesnt add much other than cost.


It depends upon your shooting habits. There are definitely times where it could be nice- for me, shooting wildlife in the dawn/dusk times means low light, and a slower shutter means not cranking my ISO so high to capture a slowly moving animal. It would also work well for balancing ambient for portraits under the same conditions. But it's not something everybody will use regardless. I've only got one VR lens and I use it probably the least of all my others, so I adapt my shooting style to accommodate that. Do you NEED it? Maybe, depends. Is it an overpriced addition? Depends if it's of use to you. If you never shoot in low light handheld, then it probably isn't much use. Using that lens with some extension tubes could be some good macro fun though, for instance.


It depends on the things you've written but it depends also on whether you work with it. I can't work with a non-VR zoom. Otherwise, if the lens is pretty good (and everybody says 80-200 is great) you can surely use it :)
 10/25/2012 12:45:02 PM · #11
Yup- horses for courses ;)
 10/25/2012 12:54:32 PM · #12
As someone who has an 80-200 (and yes, the 80-200 is an impressive lens, especially for the price), if this lens is all that's promised, I'd be very interested. Not because of VR, since I've learned to shoot without it, but because it's a full pound lighter than the 80-200. As a smallish woman, the 3 pound 80-200 isn't really hand-holdable. It's heavy enough that to get a decent shot, I need to put the 80-200 on a monopod.

Also, my experience with the 80-200 is that it's got so much CA at f/2.8 that I always shoot at f/4 or smaller. If the 70-200 f/4 is good at f/4, then there's not much downside to switching.

Waiting for some lens reviews to come in...
 10/25/2012 06:31:15 PM · #13
Hmm I had been holding out for a 70-200 f2.8 but the pricetag ($2400 + 13% in taxes) is somewhat discouraging. I have the 300mm f.4 and am comfy doing handheld with it, though if staked out for a particular bird or critter I usually have the tripod along.

So I might be interested in this lens. The 5 stops of VR sound good, and I do use the VR on my 18-200 when shooting handheld. Generally, if braced against something I can shoot a sharp image at 1/40. Any less and out comes Manny. Off to do more research....thanks for the headsup, Derek! :-)
 10/25/2012 08:02:03 PM · #14
Originally posted by snaffles:
Hmm I had been holding out for a 70-200 f2.8 but the pricetag ($2400 + 13% in taxes) is somewhat discouraging.


... and if you owned a Canon, some ole fart would gladly lend you his when you needed it.

Ray
 10/25/2012 08:07:24 PM · #15
I own the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII, it took lots of saving but it is phenomenal. Even with the 1.7tc. Motorsports, sports, wildlife, events, outdoor portraits, abstract, the bokeh is amazing, and the sharpness is on par with my 35mm prime from 70-200mm edge to edge.

I bet this f4 is a great lens, if you are wanting f2.8 I'd still keep saving though, the lens is worth the wait (and you can get them slightly used now).
 10/26/2012 03:22:16 PM · #16
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Hmm I had been holding out for a 70-200 f2.8 but the pricetag ($2400 + 13% in taxes) is somewhat discouraging.


... and if you owned a Canon, some ole fart would gladly lend you his when you needed it.

Ray


...and so, well-meaning Uncle Raymee, seconded by the OTHER Canon-toting redhead, continued his futile quest to get the capricious snaffles to switch brands...
 10/26/2012 09:08:22 PM · #17
Originally posted by bassbone:
Originally posted by Cory:
Price is right, that much is for sure. :)

The price of the 80-200 f2.8 is even better....


I agree with Peter. I have the 80-200 F2.8 and have been very happy with it and I really haven't needed the VR either.
 10/26/2012 10:00:38 PM · #18
Originally posted by snaffles:
... his futile quest to get the capricious snaffles to switch brands...

If you were "capricious" you'd already have switched. "Steadfast" is the word you're looking for, surely?
 10/27/2012 07:34:58 PM · #19
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by snaffles:
... his futile quest to get the capricious snaffles to switch brands...

If you were "capricious" you'd already have switched. "Steadfast" is the word you're looking for, surely?


Probably...guess I've been shooting goats too much lately :-)
 10/27/2012 09:59:55 PM · #20
Originally posted by snaffles:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by snaffles:
... his futile quest to get the capricious snaffles to switch brands...

If you were "capricious" you'd already have switched. "Steadfast" is the word you're looking for, surely?


Probably...guess I've been shooting goats too much lately :-)


Goats... I thought you said ghosts. :O)

Oh, but the way, I don't know if you made it to Ottawa or not, but the Zombie Walk was great fun. I took Krista with me and she definitely wants us to go next year. Will post some of the photos to my Zenfolio account later.

Ray
 01/02/2013 07:24:41 PM · #21
I got 10 minutes with this lens at the store today.

My quick impression, from my completely unscientific test in the store on my D800.....

Inside the store, it felt light and well balanced and focused quickly, even in the dubious light inside the store. It's easily hand holdable. I can't imagine many people will buy that $200 tripod collar.

At home, looking at the images...They're sharp. All of them. Even the ones where I was intentionally trying to stress the lens. 200mm at 1/15? Pixel peeping sharp. The edges (when I could get a flat focus plane in the crowded store)...sharp. Corners? No idea. It was a crowded store, and I couldn't find a flat place where I could see all of the corners at the same time. Distortion? I didn't see any in the shots that I took of the store shelves, but I wasn't working very hard at trying to cause distortion. It wasn't really the right place to be checking for CA either, but there wasn't any in the shots I took. Color? I have no idea. I was inside a camera shop with evil fluorescent lighting.

So, anyway, I ordered one. I'll report back when it comes.
 01/02/2013 08:51:21 PM · #22
Originally posted by Ann:
I got 10 minutes with this lens at the store today.

My quick impression, from my completely unscientific test in the store on my D800.....

Inside the store, it felt light and well balanced and focused quickly, even in the dubious light inside the store. It's easily hand holdable. I can't imagine many people will buy that $200 tripod collar.

At home, looking at the images...They're sharp. All of them. Even the ones where I was intentionally trying to stress the lens. 200mm at 1/15? Pixel peeping sharp. The edges (when I could get a flat focus plane in the crowded store)...sharp. Corners? No idea. It was a crowded store, and I couldn't find a flat place where I could see all of the corners at the same time. Distortion? I didn't see any in the shots that I took of the store shelves, but I wasn't working very hard at trying to cause distortion. It wasn't really the right place to be checking for CA either, but there wasn't any in the shots I took. Color? I have no idea. I was inside a camera shop with evil fluorescent lighting.

So, anyway, I ordered one. I'll report back when it comes.


Thanks for the update, Ann. I've been watching some initial thoughts and they all seem to be pretty good. Lensrentals had a quick writeup showing that the f4 was as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 wide open, but that the 2.8 was sharper when stopped down to f4. Either way, it seems like a nicely priced lens and is surely more portable.
 01/18/2013 06:42:17 PM · #23
My impressions of this lens after having it for a week and using it a few times...

What I have for comparison is an 80-200 f/2.8 (the latest model with the 2 ring zoom) that I used to take most of my ribbon winners, so here are my thoughts from that perspective.

Image quality - The 80-200 may be marginally sharper, but it's a very, very close call. I wouldn't want to stake my credibility on a blind test between the two. The 70-200 is plenty sharp across the frame of my D800, even at f/4. Color and contrast on the 70-200 are noticeably better than the 80-200. The 70-200 has some fairly well controlled CA, but less than the 80-200, which is a CA creation machine at f/2.8, especially with teleconverters. The bokeh isn't like the bokelicious 200 f/2 or anything, but it's fine for an f/4. The shiny circles are round and their edges are pretty soft. People who are shooting a lot of architecture will complain about the distortion. It looks pretty decent at the long end, but I wouldn't want to shoot any brick walls with the short end. I haven't noticed the distortion in real world shooting, but I haven't shot any architecture with it, either.

Other factors - It's small and, for the focal length, light. Size and weight-wise, it's about the same weight as the 70-300 VR, it's just a little narrower. I had no trouble hand holding it for an entire shoot this morning, unlike the 80-200 which always requires a monopod for me. It fits in my bag, and it's light enough that I'll be more likely to take it with me, instead of leaving it at home all the time like I do with the 80-200. The VR is crazy amazing. Way better than earlier VR lenses. Focusing is fast, accurate, and quiet.

So, the bottom line....It's probably not as excellent as the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII uber lens. But it's pretty darn good, and it's a pound lighter ant $1000 cheaper. It's the right choice for me, because it's light enough to carry. No matter how awesome the f/2.8 is, I would probably leave it at home because it's too heavy.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 07:23:06 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 07:23:06 AM EDT.