70-200mm f4 advice please

I'm hoping to be able to stretch to a 70-200mm f4 to complete my 3-lens mid-range zoom dream-team on my forthcoming D610/D620/D750.

The purpose of the lens would be extra reach on landscape & event shots, also for wildlife. I understand the lens also works well with the 1.4 teleconvertor for birds.

Any comments please?

You're talking a 280mm f/5.6 max reach for birds and wildlife with the TC. Not ideal on a full frame, particularly one with 24MP's that leave you fewer pixels post crop.

Otherwise it's a great lens that I've been using with great success. For events it may focus hunt a bit with the D610 if it's real dark, and you'll gain a stop of ISO noise if you're not using a flash. The camera listed (the other two are still virtual) does fine thru ISO 6400, but there's always a little more work in post dealing with high ISO shots.

So those are my negatives. Otherwise, I use it a ton. Until I started shooting some outdoor concerts at night this past week I had no desire for the f/2.8 counterpart, and while I lusted after that for a bit, I'm now back to thinking my better investment will be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 as it is the more flexible choice with TC's and doesn't duplicate the range. It's too big and heavy for concert and walking around shots, but it gives me a big bump in quality over the 150-500mm I'm using for wildlife now, which can't handle a TC.

Thanks for your advice Jake, it's appreciated.

I'll qualify the "events" that I mean to cover. I'm thinking for of outdoor events such as country fairs, agricultural shows, maybe horse jumping. All natural daylight.

Point taken about the max reach issue for wildlife. I understand that although the 2x teleconvertor works, the 70-200mm autofocus can "hunt" a bit.

For wildlife, I'm aiming for this lens to be a good quality stop-gap, until if & when I take that side more seriously. A future possibility would be the AF-S 300mm f4D IF-ED with a 2x teleconvertor which seems to review very well. I'd be inclined though to wait until Nikon produce a VR version.

Meanwhile, the main medium-term use for this lens would be the events I mentioned, but I was hoping to get some initial wildlife use out of it too. Your point about the reach still being short for wildlife is useful for me to remember.

I've used my 70-200 f2.8 with the new 2x TC and it has worked well with static and some BIF, though I wouldn't like to try anything moving too fast. The 300 f4 works really well with the 1.4 TC but can hunt with the 1.7 TC and I am sure it will with the 2x TC - remember too that Nikon rate AF at f5.6 except for more recent cameras that will do up to f8 with minimal AF points.

Have you considered the Tamron 150-600 or the new Nikon 80-400 AF-S for future wildlife use?

@photogramps

Thank you for your reply.

I understand that the 70-200mm f2.8 handles teleconvertors more effectively than the f4 model. Unfortunately the full pro level glass is out of my budget.

As I prefer to stick with Nikon glass, I have not looked at the Tamron.

I considered the 80-400mm but it doesn't seem to review too well mainly due to autofocus accuracy.

Gorf said:

As I prefer to stick with Nikon glass, I have not looked at the Tamron.

Click to expand...

I can understand that, all of my other lenses are Nikon

Gorf said:

I considered the 80-400mm but it doesn't seem to review too well mainly due to autofocus accuracy.

Click to expand...

Are you talking of the older AF version or the new AF-S version?

About the 80-400mm, I meant the new AFS version, sorry.

Here's a review that mentions the issue: Nikon 80-400mm VR Review

Thanks for the link, Mansurov does do a good review so you have to acknowledge what he says.
I know of 3 wildlife photographers who swear by the lens so I'm a bit puzzled as they haven't reported anything like this but I can fully understand your caution.
I had the old 80-400 and there were certainly issues there

I am a little bit away from affording a full blown wildlife lens, so I can wait to see if anything new turns up. Meanwhile, I think sticking with the 70-200mm f4 + 1.4 tc for wildlife for the moment will "make-do", also gives me the usefulness of the 70-200mm range for other shots.

This thread is proving very useful for me to plan my thoughts, thanks to everyone who has contributed so far. Any other thoughts & suggestions are very welcome.

Taking the wildlife thoughts a little further, I've not completely written off the 80-400mm & I am getting a little interested in the Tamron 150-600mm too.

I'm wondering if the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4D IF-ED is due a refresh. It reviews very well for wildlife & works nicely with teleconverters.

A nice review of the 300mm f4 is here: Nikon 300mm f/4D AF-S Review

I think Nikon are bashing out everything they can at the moment to bring in the $$'s so who knows, a new 300 f4 may be on the cards but no rumours yet.
The current 300 f4 with 1.4 TC is excellent but can struggle with the 1.7 TC - I didn't have the new 2.0 TC when I had mine

I have both the 70-200 f/4 and the 300 f/4. I love both lenses!

The 70-200 f/4 is probably my favorite Nikon lens because its VR is so incredibly effective, it's super forgiving! I get a high % of tack sharp images out of it even when my technique isn't the best.

If wildlife photography is the biggest priority for this lens, from my experience, 300mm is the shortest practical focal length for a dedicated all-around wildlife lens, with 400mm being much better. it's difficult to get close enough to most wildlife species to make 200mm work effectively without excessive cropping. I keep the TC1.4II permanently attached to my 300 f/4, and it's my "poor man's" 400, if there is such a thing. It lacks VR, and with the TC1.4, it only gives you f/5.6 wide open. As a result, it's not the best in low light and is pretty challenging to get sharp images with early and late in the day even with a sizable ISO bump. But, it's optically very good, even with the TC1.4 attached, and when you get everything right, it produces tack sharp images. In comparison to any other quality lens of the same focal length, the 300 f/4 +TC1.4 is a bargain.

I have the Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ed D lens and I'm loving it so far. I paid around $650.00 and feel like it was worth every penny, especially since mine was in like new condition!
Just look at sambr's wildlife shots, and that is what sold me on this lens. Though he might have been using the more expensive version than I'm using. But his wildlife shots are awesome!

I had the 70-200 vrii with the TC-20e iii. I recently got the Tamron 150-600 and get much better and more consistent results so I sold the TC. Wildlife needs reach, it's as simple as that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[MENTION=22038]T-Man[/MENTION]

Thanks for your post, it was very useful for me, especially as you have both lenses. The 70-200 f4 is supposed to be a stop-gap for wildlife until I can afford a specific lens. Otherwise the main use would be for greater reach for landscapes & greater reach for outdoor events such as country fairs etc. What do you think of the lens for that usage?

I think that the 300mm f4 is due a refresh being one of the very few long lenses left in the FX range that doesn't have VR. With that in mind, I think a 300mm f4 VR would be my choice with a tc for a dedicated wildlife lens.

Geoffc said:

I had the 70-200 vrii with the TC-20e iii. I recently got the Tamron 150-600 and get much better and more consistent results so I sold the TC. Wildlife needs reach, it's as simple as that.

Click to expand...

Thanks, a very useful point about reach.

Was your 70-200mm an f2.8 or f4?

Bill16 said:

I have the Nikkor AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 ed D lens and I'm loving it so far. I paid around $650.00 and feel like it was worth every penny, especially since mine was in like new condition!
Just look at sambr's wildlife shots, and that is what sold me on this lens. Though he might have been using the more expensive version than I'm using. But his wildlife shots are awesome!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post Bill

It's difficult to ignore the reviews about the 80-400mm, but it's not completely written off for me. I'd be interested in seeing some shots in the 300-400mm range if you have any? I think you posted some long range shots in the street, but it's difficult for me to feel how that would look on a close up of a perched bird for instance.

Mine was a 2.8 vrii which this TC is made for. I was never happy as it went from great to rubbish to easily.

BackdoorHippie said:

You're talking a 280mm f/5.6 max reach for birds and wildlife with the TC. Not ideal on a full frame, particularly one with 24MP's that leave you fewer pixels post crop.

Otherwise it's a great lens that I've been using with great success. For events it may focus hunt a bit with the D610 if it's real dark, and you'll gain a stop of ISO noise if you're not using a flash. The camera listed (the other two are still virtual) does fine thru ISO 6400, but there's always a little more work in post dealing with high ISO shots.

So those are my negatives. Otherwise, I use it a ton. Until I started shooting some outdoor concerts at night this past week I had no desire for the f/2.8 counterpart, and while I lusted after that for a bit, I'm now back to thinking my better investment will be the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 as it is the more flexible choice with TC's and doesn't duplicate the range. It's too big and heavy for concert and walking around shots, but it gives me a big bump in quality over the 150-500mm I'm using for wildlife now, which can't handle a TC.

Click to expand...

How do you ever get to know so much?
Man I will have to live to 639 years (and will probably suffer from ALtz at that age)

Geoffc said:

Mine was a 2.8 vrii which this TC is made for. I was never happy as it went from great to rubbish to easily.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Geoff.