Nikon 70-200mm lens. F4 or F2.8?

DoubleCheese

DoubleCheese

DoubleCheese

Associate
Joined
26 Jun 2005
Posts
1,487
I recently rented the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII lens for a trip to Rwanda and it was fantastic. I'm back to my 70-300 VR and unfortunately it doesn't come close. I've had some great images out of it, but the F2.8 is something else.

So, I'm considering buying one but there's the F4 as well, which is significanly cheaper. Has anyone here got or used both to give a comparison and pros and cons of either?

I'm going to try and test the F4 this weekend hopefully.

Also, any good deals on these out there at the moment? I'm seeing £1579 for the F2.8 and £850 for the F4. Anything better or with cash back?
 

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
The difference comes down to size, weight, cot and the 1 stop. Optically they are the same, painfully sharp.

What I don't like about an f/4 zoom in that range is it is nt really very fast at all. I mean your 70-300mm over that range is not much slower and optically not too far behind up to 200mm. While the 2.8 makes for a very nice portrait lens at the shorter lengths and at 200mm is noticeably faster.

The 2.8 when used ith a TC then because more versatile. With the f/4 version once you add a TC you might as well stick with the bare 70-300mm.
 

James J

James J

James J

Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2002
Posts
14,520
Location
North Lincolnshire
Depends how much you need f2.8 as the f4 resolves an insane amount of detail and has the best be available. I've owned the f4 and have a few hundred good shots taken with it so far on my d600
 

CGrieves

CGrieves

CGrieves

Associate
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
2,298
Location
Sarf Lahndahn
From a Canon perspective, I went with the f2.8 version. After playing with fast primes, I realised that f2.8, while the fastest available in that range, isn't actually particularly "fast" in the grand scheme of things, so it had to be the f2.8 for me. As I do a lot of low-light stuff, F4 would have held me back.

You've used one, so you know if you can deal with the weight, I guess you know if you can afford it, so the real question is whether the f4 will be a photographic compromise for you or not.
 

D.P.

D.P.

D.P.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,618
Also consider the first gen 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI, optically it is basically as sharp as the new one when used naked, the new one however holds up much better when using TCs.

There are some internet myths that the old one had poor corner performance but that was really in the most extreme corners (the review on DPReview shows you that the old lens is superbly sharp right up to the last few mm of the extreme corners). Furthermore, the newer lens has a little more focus breathing so if you are shooting at closer distances backing the old lens off to 180mm will result in the same subject size and an even sharper image.



Saying all of that, one nice thing about a 70-200mm f/2.8 is getting a 280mm f/4.0 out of it, in which case the new lens makes a little more sense.



Lastly if budget comes an issue but you still want an f/2.8 lens consider the 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D and AF-S. The AF-D is still sold new today but can be found commonly second hand - focus is very, very fast and very quiet for an AF-D design, I didn't really see a difference between my 70-200 AF-S and 80-200 AF-D!

Optically both are pretty much as good as the latest 70-200.

With the AF-D model you wont be able to autofous with a Nikon TC and similar degradation can be expected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom