Just sprung for the the 70-200mm f4

[BackdoorArts]

Bethlehem Musikfest is coming up in just over a week and since I sold my 28-300mm earlier this year I find myself woefully unprepared for it in the lens department. I've been convinced for some time that while the 70-200mm f2.8 is an amazing lens, the weight and cost just don't make sense to me when the f4 is available. This was confirmed when I saw that Jim Brandenburg was selling his f2.8 in favor of the f4 and it's lighter weight and smaller profile. I really can't afford to drop the coin on it, but what the heck?!

Sorry, jdeg, but I didn't use the Amazon link. As of 7/1 they started collecting NJ sales tax and I can't afford the extra $100. Plus as a NAPP member B&H ships free, and they threw in a free Hoya UV filter. Should be here tomorrow giving me a week to get used to it.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I'm looking forward to your impressions of this lens after you've used it.

WM

 

[hark]

I'm looking forward to your impressions of this lens after you've used it.

WM

Me too!

I purchased the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 because I needed it for photographing student dramas. A lens that only opens to f/4 quite often just hunted making me have to manual focus. That said, the weight of the Sigma is monstrous, and it isn't something I carry outside for general shooting. Because of weakness in my forearms, I wouldn't be able to use it without a tripod. It is just too darned heavy. I am looking forward to your photos with the Nikon, Jake! Have fun!

 

[Krs_2007]

I will tell you that this lens is my favorite. I shoot sports with it and only it, as well as did some family portraits. Its a fantastic lens. Since I got the lens my 70-300 VR hasn't been back on my camera and sits on my shelf. I cant say enough about this lens and really look forward to how it will perform on your 600. I debated the 2.8, but could not justify the cost so I read some reviews and read nothing but great things about it. I am now looking at adding a 300 f/4 to my bag to cover the 300 range. It does except TC which is also a plus as long as your camera has f8 support, which the 600 and others do.

Nothing but great things to say about and get excited when others purchase it. There is a thread on it here somewhere.

 

[WhiteLight]

Congrats Jake..
That's somewhere on my to-buy list, but don;t foresee it in the near future..

Lots of people have a lot of good things to say about this lens & most say it performs better than the 2.8

 

[singlerosa_RIP]

Lots of people have a lot of good things to say about this lens & most say it performs better than the 2.8[/QUOTE]

I would guess that those that say that don't have the 2.8 or have a different definition of performance. I find it hard to believe that Nikon would make a $1400 lens that outperforms a $2400 lens. VRIII can't be that much better than VRII, can it? What is easy to believe is that the f/4 is cheaper, lighter and probably as good 90% of the time. Whether it's worth another grand for that 10% when your shooting in a club or want totally blown out backgrounds is up to the shooter.

 

[Kodiak]

•

Good thinking Jim!

In given situations the extra one or two stops (or sometimes less) make the difference
between a keeper and a desktop paper bin!

A pro wedding photographer was bugging me with the money he saved with his new
AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G!

I don't do weddings but modelling and portraits. And when he saw the benefits of 9 blades,
Nano Crystal Coating and ƒ1.4… He stopped bragging!

It's not a matter of snobbism it's a matter of tools. Many times I won a job against the
competition because of my tools. A good idea done with good tools is better than a better
idea finished with scotch-tape!

Vbrg,

 

[WhiteLight]

Lots of people have a lot of good things to say about this lens & most say it performs better than the 2.8

I would guess that those that say that don't have the 2.8 or have a different definition of performance. I find it hard to believe that Nikon would make a $1400 lens that outperforms a $2400 lens. VRIII can't be that much better than VRII, can it? What is easy to believe is that the f/4 is cheaper, lighter and probably as good 90% of the time. Whether it's worth another grand for that 10% when your shooting in a club or want totally blown out backgrounds is up to the shooter.

Well, have a looksie..
http://photographylife.com/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr-incredible
​
It is obvious that most would think that a $1000 costlier lens would produce images that are better.
Like you said 90% of the time would probably be more than 100% for the most of us

 

[mikew_RIP]

I always thought a lot of the extra cost was to make a lens perform well at 2.8 over F4,if thats the case surely at F4 it would be reasonable to expect a similar performance.

mike

 

[Kodiak]

•

Hey Jake,

There are very important differences between the two lenses that justify the price gap!

ED glass, aperture, 67Ø-77Ø, more and bigger lenses, etc.

You will not see me raise my nose on ƒ4 because I have ƒ2,8. There a 5 things that are
important to me, so much that I buy only the best:

Photo gear, guitars, tools for my workshop, cars & bikes. and hockey (not in that order).

My car was chosen for its safety package, not for speed or funky gizmos! I got 2 kids onboard!
Many would argue that this is not a good car because of … whatever.

Photo gear must deliver magic and this magic is available at certain conditions, like the price.

Some magic is possible at all price ranges… but I need all the magic! I never know what
my next client will come up with!

Vbrg,

 

[Disorderly]

I've had the 70-200mm F/2.8 for ages. I hardly ever use it; it's too heavy for me to handhold for very long, and too big to fit in my camera bag. I got the F/4 recently and love it. The image quality is amazing, it's narrow enough to fit in my bag, and it weighs barely more than the 24-70mm F/2.8 I use most of the time. It's a compromise, I know, but one I'm very happy with.

One difference between the F/4 and the F/2.8 is in efficiency. As an experiment I tried shooting the same setup with both lenses, as well as the 85mm F/1.8. At 85mm and F/4, the 2.8 was about 1/3 stop brighter than the 4, and the 85mm was about 1/3 stop brighter than that. Not surprised that a prime suffers less light loss than a zoom (I'd seen the same thing when I switch to the 105mm), but wasn't expecting so great a difference between two zooms.

I've heard it said that the best camera is the one you have with you. By that measure, the F/4 beats the F/2.8 most every time. It's the one I have with me.

 

[NVSteve]

I find it hard to believe that Nikon would make a $1400 lens that outperforms a $2400 lens.

F2.8 vs F4 justifies the price difference. If we were talking about a $1400 f2.8 vs a $2400 f2.8, then something would indeed be fishy.

 

[jwstl]

By all accounts the f/4 is as good-some say better- than the 2.8 at common apertures. Of course, the 2.8 has that extra stop and that can make a difference in getting a shot in certain situations. The 2.8 is a little better in build quality and weather sealing than the f/4...not that the f/4 is bad. I use the f/4 now and it really is spectacular in performance. If you need the extra stop and the better build the price difference is probably not that great. As for me, I didn't have to have the 2.8 and weight was more important so I chose the f/4.

 

[BackdoorArts]

I'm surely not saying the difference in price is not justified, or at least justifiable. What I am saying is that for my money and for my shooting there is nothing about the f2.8 that makes me feel that the f4 is a compromise. The weight factor alone would keep me from using the heavier lens at the music festival that I purchased this lens for. 10 day of walking around daily between 7 stages for 4 hours on week nights and 6-8 on weekends would kill me with the heavy lens - particularly on the D800, which I will likely use if only for the benefit of the extra pixels and crop factor options.

Gear is only good when it's used, and this will see a lot more use. I hardly ever shoot wide open with the gear I have, so if I haven't been looking for that extra stop so far I am fairly sure that the occasions where I do in the future will be minimal at best.

 

[Rick M]

Excellent choice Jake! I could have bought the 2.8, but it would not have joined me on my hikes. The f4 is an excellent tool in a small light package. As far as which is better, there are tests showing it is sharper than the 2.8. It all depends on your needs, I wanted sharper so I bought the better lens, the f4.