Nikon 70-200 f4 Thread
- Thread starter Rick M
- Start date
100% Happy with it, it has surpassed my expectations (and this comming from a prime snob)
Good to hear. I'm about 95% sure I'll keep mine even if I add a new 2.8 into the mix. However, I have only taken maybe 20 pictures with it outdoors, so I'm sure I will like it more and more as I start using it more frequently outside. I'll post up a couple later on showing how well it did for me in bright outdoor lighting.
Congrats on your great choice of lens Rick. I think your lens arsenal is almost complete.
The slow AF of the Tamron was the first thing that I've noticed when I tried that lens. Although it is quiet when it tries to AF, is it just way too slow for me after using the Nikon lens for a while. It might not cut it in sports application.
Okay, these aren't the greatest since I was taking them from so far away, but they are my only outdoor shots so far.
The resized original: 1/1000, f4, 190mm
100% crop:
Another one resized (1/2000, f/4, 200mm):
100% crop (the original was already cropped-200mm didn't quite cut it):
I wanted to throw a bit of movement into the mix rather than still-life shots. Lens seems to be quite capable & I look forward to using it more.
PS-biggest mistake I've made on a computer in the last 10 years was "upgrading" to Internet Explorer 10, which seems to have problems with most sites I visit, including this one. Thank you for not being so lame, Firefox.
The resized original: 1/1000, f4, 190mm
100% crop:
Another one resized (1/2000, f/4, 200mm):
100% crop (the original was already cropped-200mm didn't quite cut it):
I wanted to throw a bit of movement into the mix rather than still-life shots. Lens seems to be quite capable & I look forward to using it more.
PS-biggest mistake I've made on a computer in the last 10 years was "upgrading" to Internet Explorer 10, which seems to have problems with most sites I visit, including this one. Thank you for not being so lame, Firefox.
When I actually get some time, I'm going to compare the f4 to the Tamron 70-300VC I have. I'm assuming the edges will be better on the Nikon, but I'm really curious as to how well the Tamron compares since that will most likely be my main backpacking/hiking tele. I'm taking a short 1600 mile road trip this weekend & will be bringing along the f4 to hopefully do some more intensive daylight testing with it.
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
Great choice for a telephoto zoom, Rick. I'm happy with mine. The 2.8 was out of my price range.
Right back at you, Rick:
Full image resized:
100% crop:
Full image resized:
100% crop:
Full image resized:
100% crop:
No, they aren't the best, nor are all of them focused on the eyes. The problem I had was with a teenager with sticky fingers who just had to play with my camera & she somehow set it to spot metering. I was able to save most of the photos, but only to the level of being just okay.
Full image resized:
100% crop:
Full image resized:
100% crop:
Full image resized:
100% crop:
No, they aren't the best, nor are all of them focused on the eyes. The problem I had was with a teenager with sticky fingers who just had to play with my camera & she somehow set it to spot metering. I was able to save most of the photos, but only to the level of being just okay.
Big Brown just delivered mine, but of course no time to try it out other than few random test subjects that wont show the capability of the lens. So far in a side by side comparison with my 70-300 VR, the 70-200 is much clearer and seems to focus a little faster. I hate losing the long end of it, but I really didn't shoot much over 200 and if I want it back then I can put a TC on it and be back to 5.6 with a 1.4, from what I have read. I will give it the sports test this weekend if the weather decides to work in my favor. And I couldn't see spending the money on 2.8, but who knows maybe down the road I will circle back around to it. If you have the 70-300, the one thing I really like about this is its all internal, so when you zoom the lens doesn't grow in length. I know this true for other high end lenses, but was new to me.
I also had the 70-300 VR and find the f4 noticably sharper. Although the 70-300 VR served me well, I bought it used in mint condition for $220.00 and sold it for $400.00
(pays to watch craigslist!)Thats my plan, is if this lens fits my needs then I will sell the 70-300. Its been my go to lens for so long that it may be hard to part with. Thats a good price you sold it for, when they had the lens rebate the store wanted to give me 200 but I talked him up to 250 and I just couldnt do it. I would think I could get around 350 for it as it still looks brand new.
Been playing with the lens and did some family portraits this weekend with it. Sports shots are better than the 70-300 VR, seems to be a little crisper so I would say the 70-200 f4 is fitting my needs so far. I did take a picture of this little guy that really impressed me. I plan to keep both lenses, was going to sell but realized I wouldn't get much for it so I am keeping it.
It blew me away, I just have to wait for the approval from the boss before I can post any of them. But they turned out really nice, with the exception of being forced to shoot them during mid-day. We did try to work around it, but would have preferred the golden hour.
Here is another little guy we found.
http://[URL="[url]http://nikonites.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=23300
[/URL]"][/URL]
Here is another little guy we found.
http://[URL="[url]http://nikonites.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=23300
Last edited: