Nikon 70-200 f4 Thread

Rick M

Senior Member
I thought I'd start a thread to post shots and discuss this new lens. A few test shots at f4 to start off with,

these are all a shot raw, no post processing at all.


DSC_3214_6162.JPG


DSC_3218_6166.JPG


DSC_3219_6167.JPG


DSC_3221_6169.JPG
 

fhibbs12

Senior Member
samples look good.

What caused you to change your mind from the 2.8 if you don't mind me asking your thought process determining between the two?

Also, do you think the f4 would suffice for indoor youth basketball?

Shooting on a D600.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
samples look good.

What caused you to change your mind from the 2.8 if you don't mind me asking your thought process determining between the two?

Also, do you think the f4 would suffice for indoor youth basketball?

Shooting on a D600.

The new Tamron has an edge in speed (2.8) and bokeh, there is no denying those solid points and they formulated my first decision to get the Tamron. What changed my mind was handling and shooting both. The Nikon has a better build quality side by side (but the Tamron is really close!). Holding both really shows the size/weight difference, it is a big difference. The Nikon autofocus is definitely faster (more to speed than the f stop). The nikon is sharper at 200mm, the Tamron is noted to be a bit soft at 200mm. One thing that stood out in reviews is that the Tamron's real focal length is 70-186mm, I want my 70-200 to go to 200mm :). Reviews also reflected the low light focus in the Tamron, I'll post some results from the nikon next.

So when I put this all together in my mind and had them in my hands, the Nikon is the better lens for me (although I would burn more calories carrying the Tamron around :))
 

RockyNH_RIP

Senior Member
Rick, was there a big savings between the Tamron & Nikon?? I assume Tamron less expensive even f/2.8??

I think my next purchase is going to be a macro lens of some sorts...

Pat in NH

PS: the shots look good!
 

Rick M

Senior Member
The brick wall test, f5.6, handheld, all corners sharp at 200mm. Should have used a tripod and the direct light did wash it out a bit, again, no post on any of these test shots.


DSC_3225_6173.JPG



A couple inside shots at f5.6

DSC_3230_6178.JPG


DSC_3233_6181.JPG



Indoor, low light shots. Both ISO 1250, f4, handheld 1/20th second! First is at 70mm, second at 200mm. Note the the auto-assist light is off, nailed both first shot. This VR is amazing!

DSC_3234_6182.JPG




DSC_3235_6183.JPG
 
Last edited:

Rick M

Senior Member
Rick, was there a big savings between the Tamron & Nikon?? I assume Tamron less expensive even f/2.8??

I think my next purchase is going to be a macro lens of some sorts...

Pat in NH

PS: the shots look good!

Thanks Pat! The nikon is about $100 less because it is f4.
 

NVSteve

Senior Member
would you feel comfortable walking into a highschool gym and shooting a basketball game with it?

What shutter speed(s) and which camera body? On my D600, for example, I shot indoor speedskating at 1/1250, f4, at around ISO 2800. Indoor gymnastics had much worse light, so I was shooting at 1/640, f4, between ISO 1600-3200. Even though high ISO on the D600 looks fairly good, that extra stop (f2.8) would really make things look that much better.
 

NVSteve

Senior Member
The nikon is sharper at 200mm, the Tamron is noted to be a bit soft at 200mm.

I've seen mention of the softness myself in some of the reviews. In others, they claim it is sharp at 200mm. I hate conflicting reviews!

One thing that stood out in reviews is that the Tamron's real focal length is 70-186mm, I want my 70-200 to go to 200mm :).

I'd be more concerned about a few mm on the wide end, as a few mm on tele doesn't add up to much. Much rather have that than the focus breathing of the VRII, which could potentially drop it to much less than 186mm, depending on the situation.

The f4 is a fantastic little (and very light) lens. I can't see how anyone could go wrong with it unless they shoot indoors all the time and need the extra stop.

So, are you 100% happy with it, or are you still in a testing phase?
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Last set of test shots, Both 100% crops from originals to show focus detail, handheld at f4

Stop sign at 200mm

DSC_3238_6186.JPG



House number at 70mm

DSC_3242_6190.JPG
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I've seen mention of the softness myself in some of the reviews. In others, they claim it is sharp at 200mm. I hate conflicting reviews!



I'd be more concerned about a few mm on the wide end, as a few mm on tele doesn't add up to much. Much rather have that than the focus breathing of the VRII, which could potentially drop it to much less than 186mm, depending on the situation.

The f4 is a fantastic little (and very light) lens. I can't see how anyone could go wrong with it unless they shoot indoors all the time and need the extra stop.

So, are you 100% happy with it, or are you still in a testing phase?

100% Happy with it, it has surpassed my expectations (and this comming from a prime snob :))
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I wanted to round out the long end of my kit with a zoom as I was afraid of having something on the body that was too long for general hiking. Anything I shoot below 70mm will be done with primes. I think good tele-zooms like this can deliver almost prime-like results due to the flatter image(appearance) and optics. Now I just need to wait for the next great 20mm or below prime and I will be complete.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
Now I just need to wait for the next great 20mm or below prime and I will be complete.
Thom hogan posted D600 lens recommendations on his blog yesterday and included was this interesting bit of info:

I've been researching an article about sensor/lens interaction for awhile now, but am not ready to show my findings. However, I will share a preliminary conclusion: that the camera you mount the lens on does make a small difference to apparent lens performance. A really good case here is the old 20mm f/2.8D. I've long recommended that you avoid it on the DX cameras. Yet it seems to work better on recent FX bodies. That's actually one of the things that sent me into testing mode trying to figure out why as it's counter intuitive to supposedly established logic (e.g. DX cameras only use the best central area of an FX lens). Well, one "why" is probably this: from the front of the AA filter to the photo-to-electron conversion area in the sensor, you need to think of that as a second optical system. Light from the first optical system (lens) that hits the second optical system (filter/sensor) even remotely off axis will be "handled differently" by different cameras.
 

Kevin H

Senior Member
I have no idea where to post this so I seen it on here so here it goes..

what does 100% crop mean???
If you have 100 apples and you take a 100% of them out your left with nothing

so if you have a picture and you crop it 100% you have nothing

I'm just new but I know math
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I have no idea where to post this so I seen it on here so here it goes..

what does 100% crop mean???
If you have 100 apples and you take a 100% of them out your left with nothing

so if you have a picture and you crop it 100% you have nothing

I'm just new but I know math

I'll take a stab too,

A 100% crop of an image is displaying part of the original in a 1 to 1 pixel ratio. It allows us to post a portion of the original at it's full file size. It is not the same as zooming in on a piece, it is displaying that portion of the image uncompressed. This allows us to look at the true performance of the camera/lens system.
 
Last edited:
Top