Tele zoom 70-200mm : F4 vs F2.8

heartyfisher

Help me try to decide ..

If IQ and cost and build quality was not taken into account, what factors
would you consider to differentiate between a 70-200 F4 vs a 70-200 F2.8.
Why would that factor be important to you ? what are the pros and cons of
each of these 2 lenses? what subjects suit each of these lenses. Styles of
photography? anything else to consider? FX vs DX body?

I am attracted to the smaller size and weight of the F4 but i am wondering what factors have I not considered?

Hallvardk

The ones that buy 2.8 lenses usually buy them to stop action. Especially in dark environments (stadiums, churches, etc), because it gives them an extra stop of light. The new 70-200 f4 is supposed to be an awesome lens, so if you don't think you'll push it so far that you'll miss the extra stop, by all means go for it.

I had the 16-35 f4, but had to change that with the 17-35 f2.8 because I started to shoot sports, and needed the extra stop.

The size, weight, and price are in favour of the f4. The extra stop is in favour of the 2.8. Thats how I see it. But then again I don't pixel peep.

PB_PM

If cost is not an issue, the only reason to pick the F4 would be the reduced weight and newer generation VR.

heartyfisher

If cost is not an issue, the only reason to pick the F4 would be the reduced weight and newer generation VR.

thanks for that .. I did not consider that point of the newer generation VR.

heartyfisher

I am planing to use this lens as my primary carry every where lens, that,s why for me the weight is a factor to consider.

sevencrossing

if you do not need the extra stop and weigh and cost are not an issue. Do a least look at the new 80 -400 a lot more expensive but about the same size and weight as the f 2.8 . Since I got mine, I have not used my 70 -200 f 2.8 ( forget the old 80 -400)

kenadams

The v3 VR is probably awesome for all video work...

heartyfisher

if you do not need the extra stop and weigh and cost are not an issue. Do a least look at the new 80 -400 a lot more expensive but about the same size and weight as the f 2.8 . Since I got mine, I have not used my 70 -200 f 2.8 ( forget the old 80 -400)

Its not that cost is not an issue its that in the case of a F2.8 vs F4 70-200. I do not want cost to be a factor in the choice. ..

weight is .. so does the extra 600-700 g start to get too heavy after a day's shooting?

heartyfisher

One other factor that was brought to my attention is that the F2.8 + TC2 gets you a 400mm F5.6 while the F4 will go to F8 which will not AF with the older cameras that cant AF at F8.

heartyfisher

The v3 VR is probably awesome for all video work...

Thanks I did not consider that factor.

sevencrossing

<
.. so does the extra 600-700 g start to get too heavy after a day's shooting?

The New Nikon 80-400mm AF-S VRIII G ED N f/4.5-5.6; is virtually the same weight as the 70-200mm VR II
AF-S G ED NIKKOR f 2.8. Both lenses are heavier than the 70 -200 f4
ignoring cost

if you want a "light weight" 400mm get the Nikon 80-400mm AF-S VRIII G ED N
if you shoot in low light, get the 70-200mm VR II AF-S G ED NIKKOR f 2.8
if you don't need f 2.8 or 400mm get the 70 -200 f4

At my age everything is too heavy after a day's shooting

PB_PM

if you do not need the extra stop and weigh and cost are not an issue. Do a least look at the new 80 -400 a lot more expensive but about the same size and weight as the f 2.8 . Since I got mine, I have not used my 70 -200 f 2.8 ( forget the old 80 -400)

Its not that cost is not an issue its that in the case of a F2.8 vs F4 70-200. I do not want cost to be a factor in the choice. ..

weight is .. so does the extra 600-700 g start to get too heavy after a day's shooting?

I've shot some events with rented 70-200mm F2.8 (VR1, and VR2), and they aren't really any worse than shooting with the 24-70 or any other pro lens. Once a lens is over 700g it will feel heavy after an extended periods of use (3-4 hours). I recommend using a monopod for extended use with any lens in that weight class.

heartyfisher

if you do not need the extra stop and weigh and cost are not an issue. Do a least look at the new 80 -400 a lot more expensive but about the same size and weight as the f 2.8 . Since I got mine, I have not used my 70 -200 f 2.8 ( forget the old 80 -400)

Thanks for your insight.. that 80-400 is really an amazing lense... its one lense that is definitely on my list to get...(someday !) just curious. What are you using it for that it has replaced the 70-200 F2.8?

sevencrossing

it's my "fun" lens mostly people at out door events
I still not have sorted out Flicker

if a FB link is allowed here I some shots from the weekend

https://www.facebook.com/philsmove/media_set?set=a.10151599019015766.1073741848.616245765&type=1

( my "work" lens is the 16 -35 f4 and my "every day" lens the 24 -120 f4 )

if I shot events professionally I would keep the 70 -120 f 2.8

Vipmediastar_JZ

Having done a shoot this weekend with primes 85 and 35mm 1.4-2.8 is fantastic. However I'm in the same boat as you. I need my tele zoom as I feel that is my sweet spot for photos.
I considered both lens and I plan on getting the f4 it has nano crystals at a low cost.
I think for my purposes studio, outdoor shoots I.e. Zoo and city the f4 is enough with the d800.
Looking at my zoo photos and stopping dolphins in mid air f4 on the 85mm was enough. I could have raised the ISO for faster shutter speed but I purposely shot at f4 to see if I could manage with the 70-200 f4

Now if and when I needed 2.8 I would rent that lens
That's just me and my opinion.
Weight and value for a non full time professional get the f4

The 80-400 looks tempting.

Photobug

sevencrossing said:

At my age everything is too heavy after a day's shooting

Amen. I did a 3 hour trip to the zoo last month and for the first time used my 70-200 F2.8 on a monopod. It certainly saved my neck.

Heattyfisher...based upon your requirements it looks like the 70-400 F4 is the best fit. Especially when you consider the newer VR. Also take a look at your neck strap. Wider more comfortable ones are available. Or consider a sling. I don't like the ones that use the tripod socket on the bottom of the camera and prefer something like the Bossstrap that uses the camera neckstrap.

Golf007sd

@heartyfisher: Nikon made this lens specifically for individual, like yourself, that are thinking of have access in this focal length yet don't need the larger aperture. Your criteria of preferring a lighter lens is the main factor here in considering the 70-200 f4. In every other factor, IMHO, the 2.8 version will dominate. The VR on the f4 does have a slight edge, yet from what I have witnessed on my 2.8, it's performance is outstanding. But I digress....you know all the technical mambo-jombo so I don't need to go over that.

If I may ask, when you say: ".... primary carry every where lens..." are you telling me/us that this will be the only lens you plan on taking with you on an outing? Or will this be in addition to other lenses as well? What apparatus do you use in caring your body & lens?

Msmoto

Maybe the 2.8 has a bit of different bokeh.... I do not know. But the cost of USD $1,000 extra for the different bokeh...? One can buy some other nice lenses with that money. And, as a do-all lens 70mm is way too long for DX, and most likely for FX. The extra $1,000 would almost buy a 16-35mm f/4 VR Nikkor which combined with an f/4 70-200mm would give one great range in two lenses.

The only real difference is probably weight and bokeh if IQ and cost and build quality were not taken into account. My guess is they both focus about the same.

So, if you have the extra money...f/2.8 always trumps f/4 IMO

Golf007sd

This is a good article that may help you with your decision.

Photograhylife Comparison of Nikon 70-200 2.8 vs 4.0

For me the key benefits of the 2.8 vs 4.0 are as follows:

1) Larger Apature...thus allowing for better light and less noise due to lower ISO needed
2) Built like a tank.
3) Amazing Fast AF
4) Lens foot for mounting on a tripod or monopod
5) 77mm filter tread
6) Better performance /w teleconverters
7) Much better Bokeh

Happy shopping...cheers

heartyfisher

Nice article .. thanks ...!

err.... why is 77 mm thread an advantage ?

Msmoto

If one uses 77mm filters, it is possible to use the same filter with step down rings on many other lenses....I guess. Or, this makes more money for Nikon if you purchase filters from them... )

OK, the lens foot, a big advantage along with the TC use.... Up to 400mm f/5.6....nice thing to have and performs well, IMO.

heartyfisher

Thanks all for the info and thoughts so far..

@ sevencrossing : I had a look at your fb album for the 80-400 on FX . The pictures are of the FOV that is similar to my taste. The 70-200 on DX will give me similar FOV. Thanks for sharing.

@ Golf007sd : "are you telling me/us that this will be the only lens you plan on taking with you on an outing? Or will this be in addition to other lenses as well? "

Yes (and no, see below :-) ). I have had a 18-200 for a long time and for the last few years I have known my Fav focal length is about 160-170mm on dx.., yeah a bit weird but thats me. the 18-200 from 150-200 mm is not the sharpest esp below f8. So I have been using the 150 F2.8 macro as my walk around lens for some time and cropping/digitalzoom to the 170mm. I love it as a macro as well (of course). However, as you suspect/expect, having a 150mm f2.8 prime as my only lens has some limitations. ( though it may not be what you think it is :-) ) my main issue is I cant hand hold it, especially at the golden hours and early twilight, and the need to drag along a tripod wherever i go with it. so that brings us to the 70-200s and this little thread.. with the 70-200s the VR is what i am keen on. Having a bit of range is the icing on the cake and it sure helps that they are sharp! :-) . Though that 150 macro is no slouch in sharpness.. ;-)

Yes I use the 18mm end of my 18-200 and its not too bad.. I dont much use the 40-120mm range (the exception being about 70mm. Another + for the 70-200). So I find myself zooming from 170mm to 18/24 then back to 200 most times when i carry around my 18-200 then getting frustrated that its not sharp at the long end then switching to my 150mm for the rest of the day :-) and packing up just at the golden hour cos i forgot my tripod again ...

I dont really have a solution for the wide end if i get the 70-200. (i take about 20% of my shots at about 18-22mm) I am thinking that the sigma 18-35 F1.8 could be a good solution but that's a problem for another day..

Re: using a 150mm f2.8 prime as my carry around lens, sorry if i offend your sensibilities and logic :-)

heartyfisher

some sample images from a recent day trip.. to illustrate what i mean.

https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10151588414299585

sevencrossing

@ sevencrossing : I had a look at your fb album for the 80-400 on FX . The pictures are of the FOV that is similar to my taste. The 70-200 on DX will give me similar FOV.

Not quite, as I shoot Fx, I do tend to give some space around the subject, and crop in post

heartyfisher

@ sevencrossing : I had a look at your fb album for the 80-400 on FX . The pictures are of the FOV that is similar to my taste. The 70-200 on DX will give me similar FOV.

Not quite, as I shoot Fx, I do tend to give some space around the subject, and crop in post

You are right of course .. as I mentioned in my post my fav focal lenght is about 170mm dx (230mm fx) .. you seem to prefer a bit longer FOV.. :-)

Golf007sd

@heartyfisher: Thank for the taking the time and respond to my questions and many of the others that have given you feedback. It is always welcome to see such a cohesive, productive conversation.

Given you style of photography and the main reasons for the 70-200 lens....your choice is clear. The 70-200 F4 is the one to go with. By getting it you address all your needs:

1) Ligher weight --- Big PLUS
2) No need to carry a tripod -- Big plus again
3) More advance VR system
4) Fantastic image quality throughout the range
5) Cost savings -- Nice bonus
6) Offers 90% of the functionality of the 2.8 version