New Nikon 70-200 f4

Rick M

Senior Member
So far the results and reviews are looking great!

Kinda glad I sold my 70-300 now, it's gonna be this or the 105 next!
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
So far the results and reviews are looking great!

Kinda glad I sold my 70-300 now, it's gonna be this or the 105 next!

I would get the zoom lens first since you have the wide to mid range FL covered. The zoom adds more versatility. Get the 105mm VR when the funds becomes more available.
 

stmv

Senior Member
nice to see Nikon continue improving lens,

for an last of the old antiques,,, can still buy a brand new 80-200 2.8 for around 1000 dollars. Pretty fine lens, but a tank.

When I want tele sharpness I use the 180 ED, or 300 mm F4,, for fun,, I am really liking the 80-400, total fun.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The only think that is keeping me from jumping on this one is the price point. For not a lot more I can get the last generation "Holy Trinity" 70-200mm f2.8 lens fairly easily on the used market, The idea that I can toss a 2X on that and easily shoot wild life makes it a little more appealing. I really need to look into borrowing/renting both the old and the new 2.8's first just to see just how much vinetting there is on an FX body with the old lens to see if it'll bother me.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Seems like a great performer. If it managed to reach to 300mm I'd strongly consider it. I need to really make a hard assessment of my long lenses this year. I do enough birding that having a 2.8 that I can put a 2x on if I wanted to in a pinch is nice. But maybe I should just suck it up and go with this and think about a real nice 300mm prime down the road.
 

John101477

Senior Member
I played with a 70-200 f4 whilke I was in California over the holidays. It is nice for a lot of things and lighter/smaller than my 70-200 f2.8 (VR1). On the flip side with my photography I find it far more useful to have the 2.8 and use the 2x telecon.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I haven't shot much above 85mm, even when I had the 70-300. I do want more range for occasional shooting, but not the 2.8 price or size, so i think this is on my list. How many stops would this loose with a 2x converter? I've never used them.
 

John101477

Senior Member
I haven't shot much above 85mm, even when I had the 70-300. I do want more range for occasional shooting, but not the 2.8 price or size, so i think this is on my list. How many stops would this loose with a 2x converter? I've never used them.

If the lens is compatable then it would be and f8 as the highest aperture you could use with a 2x telecon.
My 2.8 is heavy for sure but I haul it around every where LOL.
 

I3igcircle

Senior Member
So with that as these are the two lenses I'm trying to choose between my self right now.

With a f8 aperture on the new lens what would I be missing out on or not be able to shoot/do if I did get a 2.8 instead?
 

Rick M

Senior Member
From what I have read, ultimately, the 2.8 vrII is a slightly better lens as far as speed and bokeh. These advantages (slight perhaps?) come at almost twice the weight, $1,000 more in price and a larger size.
 

John101477

Senior Member
So with that as these are the two lenses I'm trying to choose between my self right now.

With a f8 aperture on the new lens what would I be missing out on or not be able to shoot/do if I did get a 2.8 instead?

The 2.8 is the better lens. If you got the f4 you are loosing some low light ability but saving $1000. I know seems like a no brainer but the truth is that it depends on what your shooting. I shoot in low light a lot and need the 2.8.
 

I3igcircle

Senior Member
Initially was for my sons first year of baseball, but got to thinking about school plays, and maybe some nature walks around here that have owls etc.

Down the road would be looking into the extension tunes also.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I haven't shot much above 85mm, even when I had the 70-300. I do want more range for occasional shooting, but not the 2.8 price or size, so i think this is on my list. How many stops would this loose with a 2x converter? I've never used them.

Rick, ideally an nX converter will multiply your aperture and focal length values by a factor of n. So a 70-200 f4 becomes a 140-400mm f8 with the converter. At that value of aperture you're likely to find your AF searching and you'll need to go manual. I have a Kenko Pro 300 2X that I bought a while back and they say that AF will only work on lenses with a Max aperture of 2.8 or brighter. On a whim I just stuck it on both my 50mm & 85mm f1.8 and found that it still would hunt at max aperture in high contrast situations (sunny back yard, deck rail against snowy background - that's contrast). Not sure if the Nikon TC would perform better.

Oops, just noticed that the TC is meant for DX cameras. Going to have to try this on the D7000 with the brighter lens.
 

ryanwphotography

Senior Member
I believe Jared polin did a review on this lens.....? If I had the $$ I would go for the f4. Only because I'm not interested in the extra weight of the 2.8. Plus my D7000 is pretty good in low light. And the f4 would give me a little more leeway for larger DOF. On the other hand the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is more in my price range. I think that baby runs around $770 at B&H.
 
Top