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

SquamishPhoto

Its worth noting that the new f4 lens is parfocal, a lens that that stays in focus when the focal length is changed, and that it does not suffer from the effect of focus breathing that the 2.8 lens is famous for. As others have said the VR is other worldly. Its not that challenging to get sharp hand held shots at 200mm a 1/5 or even 1/4 & 1/3 if you sit back in a corner and get really steady, and its effect is even more obvious when shooting video.

heartyfisher

@Photobug : just checked out the bos strap.. nice !

donaldejose

I posted a sample photo from the 70-200 f4 shot wide open at 110mm 1/15th second handheld in the D600 sensor dust thread. It shows the quality of the lens as well as the quality of the sensor. Scroll to bottom of page.

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/84/d600-dustoillubricant-issue-discussion#Item_826

heartyfisher

@donaldejose : that D600 is nice :-) . The image sure shows off most of the attributes of the lens that we have been discussing here. It also shows an intangible "cozy competence" that i am liking. Thanks for posting and bringing it to my attention..

I have included it here instead of having to dig around that other thread that will probably grow huge! http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/9954576546/sizes/o/ - See more at: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/84/d600-dustoillubricant-issue-discussion/p33#sthash.KqknyKsM.dpuf

PS Re the dust spots .. i noticed a few dust spots .. on the cabinet ;-)

donaldejose

Yes, there is some dust caught in the chicken wire door on this cabinet and some on the shelves. I was surprised at how sharp the lens was wide open. Of course, the depth of field is narrow so not all parts of the image are in focus at f4 but those parts that are in focus (look at the lace on the boat bottom) are very sharp! I was also surprised at how well the VR worked.

heartyfisher

@ SquamishPhoto : "Its worth noting that the new f4 lens is parfocal"

wow thats great ! i used to have one of those .. I think it was a 28-80 zuiko. (not sure now) sure was nice focusing at tele then zooming out and know the focus was spot on the place you wanted.

Re lack of Focus breathing.. saw an interesting review .. it looks like this attribute, at the longer focal length settings, gives the F4 lens thinner DOF than the F2.8 lense at distances less than 13 feet..

Msmoto

I think we had this discussion before, the 70-200mm f/2.8 at close focus, 200mm actually comes down to less than 180 mm. This might explain the f/4 version, being an actual 200 mm when close having less DOF .....

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/276/nikon-70-200-f4-vs-f2-8-anyone-tested-/p6

donaldejose

Here are two close focus photos taken with the 70-200 f4 at 200mm and f8.





I saw the black wasp on the wild flower when I took the photo. When I looked at the image on my monitor I was surprised to see all the other insects on that same plant.

MIkeA

I'm considering buying either a 70-200 f/4 VR, or a 70-300mm lens. Interested in using for wildlife. Which one would be best for wildlifel, if sharpness is important. Make sense to get the 70-200 mm and crop?

PB_PM

No matter how you look at it, the 70-200mm is a shorter lens, so that is something to consider. I don't think there is any question that the 70-200mm F4 is the sharper lens, even with a 1.4x TC it should outperform any 70-300mm lens in that regard. If you really want to get serious about wildlife shooting, consider the AF-S 300mm F4. Basically the same price as the 70-200mm F4, but it is longer, and gives you even more reach with a TC.

MIkeA

Thanks PB_PM.

haroldp

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

Thanks I did not consider that factor.

Still camera zooms are not ideal for video work because they are usually not parafocal (do not maintain focus point as you zoom) That is one reason why good video zooms are hideously expensive.

Also consider that VR may well be noisy (not an issue for stills) and AF on still lenses is often noisy.

Good video lenses are very specialized.


....H

SquamishPhoto

The new 70-200mm f4 from Nikon is nearly parfocal except for close distances and not through the full range of the zoom. I misstated earlier. I believe that the VRI 2.8 lens is parfocal and the VRII is not.

heartyfisher

Saw a posting in another forum where an argument was made for getting the Tamron 70-300 over the 70-200 f4. The main points were that,
* It is almost as sharp(sharper than the nikkor 70-300 vr)
* almost as bright.
* Reach 300mm.
* Is sharp at 300mm.
* And 1/3 the price.

I looked it up on dxo and its optically not a bad lens.

Msmoto

LOL with Harold's term, " hideously expensive".......mmmm.....from $10,000, most about $30-50,000.... Some way above $100,000. Yup, makes an 800mm f/5.6 look cheap.

DenverShooter

When I worked in sports television we had 6 of the Canon DigiSuper 100x lenses. We referred to them as the "Hubble". 9.3 mm to 930mm in TV zoom range and with the built in 2X teleconverter you got to 1860mm. F/1.7 to F/9.4 at 1860mm. 52 lbs and $150K each..

http://www.canon.com/bctv/products/digi100xs.html

There is a story about one being dropped lens first off from 15 foot of scaffolding into the dirt at a PGA Golf show but thats a story for another time...

I wanted to interface them to a DSLR body but the glass is setup for a 2/3 inch imager and you needed power to run the CPU that keeps the lens making pictures and that wasn't going to go anywhere..

Denver Shooter

Msmoto

@DenverShooter

So, finally we know how you can hand hold the 800/f5.6...LOL

WestEndBoy

F2.8 unless weight and cash are a concern. Everything else is trivial for most people.

WestEndBoy

And if cash is "the" concern, buy the 80-200 2.8 Nikon. It is professional grade for $1,000 at B&H. It is 95% as sharp and autofocuses at about 75% of the 70-200. Oh - has no VR and doesn't accept the new teleconverters - you will be MF with an old one. Those may be useful features that are lacking. But it is probably the best value in 70/80-200 2.8 zooms on the market.

DenverShooter

@DenverShooter

So, finally we know how you can hand hold the 800/f5.6...LOL

I was out handholding the 800 mm F/5.6 today teleconverter to 1000mm and I will be on the ibuprofen bandwagon tomorrow for sure…

Denver Shooter

Ade

And if cash is "the" concern, buy the 80-200 2.8 Nikon. It is professional grade for $1,000 at B&H. It is 95% as sharp and autofocuses at about 75% of the 70-200. Oh - has no VR and doesn't accept the new teleconverters - you will be MF with an old one. Those may be useful features that are lacking. But it is probably the best value in 70/80-200 2.8 zooms on the market.

You can also find the AF-S version of the 80-200/2.8 for a good deal (used) on eBay. This one focuses fairly fast and accepts all the new teleconverters. It is also one of the sharpest 70/80-200 ever. No VR however.

Edit to add: on the subject of teleconverters, with the 70-200/4 you cannot AF while using the TC-17 or TC-20 unless you have one of the newest Nikon bodies (D7100, D600/610, D800/E, D4). So if you're planning to use one of these TCs then that's another consideration for getting one of the f/2.8 zooms.

adamz

if you ain't gonna shoot 2.8 there's no need to buy 2.8. the 70-200/4vr is excellent lens to go. I would get one myself if I wouldn't have the 2.8 vrII version already.

spraynpray

3 Questions AdamZ: How does the IQ of the two lenses compare wide open, and for overall sharpness through the range? If you think the 2.8 is better, is it enough to justify the price?

adamz

@spray - I have the 2.8 vr II (had the vr I - which was very good on d3s but only good on d800) and it's tack sharp wide open. when I was upgrading the f4vr wasn't announced. as for the IQ, well as I said before the 2.8 is sharp wide open on d800, even in corners. I've played with the f4 version and my thoughts are exactly the same. tack sharp wide open, only at 4 instead of 2.8. if you ask if it's enough to justify the price, I would say yes and no. if you don't use TCs or use them only occasionally and you can bump your iso to 6400 than I wouldn't bother with the f2.8 version as it's not only more expensive but also much more bulkier. OTOH, if you like the subject isolation and use TCs from time to time than it's a better option as it gives you: 280mm/f4 (excellent), good 340/4.8 and good 400/5.6. the VR is pretty much the same on both: 1/2 for me at 200mm with acceptable keepers ratio (f4 has a slightly better vr unit but it's lighter than the 2.8, which in my case makes it more shaky).

spraynpray

Thanks. You share my thoughts on weight Vs shakes I see.