Nikon 70-200 F4 vs F2.8 , anyone tested ?

Tabazan

Hello,
I own a 70-200 F2.8 VR II, which is a great lens.

Is the F4 version sharper (and overall better) in the F4 - F 11 range (as said in some reviews - knowing that reviews are sometimes partial - ?

Ok, the F4 can't compete for indoor sports, but outdoors ?

Has someone already made a real life test comparison ?

Thanks

bland

I've been thinking about getting it for daylight sports because it's almost half the weight as the 70-200 f/2.8.

I'm expecting it to be the same equivalent as the 24-120 f/4 is to the 24-70 f/2.8. It'll do the job outdoors nicely but it'll still fall short from the 2.8 strengths.

[Deleted User]

I picked one up yesterday as I'm starting to take a lot more concert/theatre shots and frankly the f/2.8 gets heavy after a while... (The f/4 is almost exactly half the weight at 840g) The one stop difference isn't enough forme to worry in terms of exposure, and the depth of field difference is really minimal (and as I generally shoot wide open)

My first venue is a concert on Thursday, followed by Molière, in period costume - lit only by 250 candles next Monday!!! I'll let you know how I get on...

shawnino

Where will you be positioned for Moliere lit by 250 candles? Hopefully under the table, onstage, with the dude playing Orgon...?

[Deleted User]

Nope - right in front - at least, I hope so!

shawnino

Please post results.

ChromiumPrime

Somebody on FM posted a comparison between the two a while back. The f/4 looked pretty darn good. Almost just as good as f/2.8 if not better.

EDIT: here it is http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1172225/0

haroldp

www.imaging-resource.com has excellent tests of the 2.8 v1 and 2 and the new f4

DJBee49

You will also find some test information on the Mansurov's website, Photography Life.

http://photographylife.com/page/3

It looks very, very good but I won't be trading my f2.8 for one- I don't really mind the weight and the f2.8 is absolutely wonderful. It is also stunningly sharp, including with a TC.

JJ_SO

If I already had a 2.8, I wouldn't change it. But in quick comparison I saw the VR of my f/4 better than the one of f/2.8 (compared by two different persons). In the dark conditions I sometimes snap pics, even the f/2.8 wouldn't be enough. Sometimes it's better to crop a 85/1.4 and have no or less motion. Other possibility: Wait and save the money, until Sigma gets their 120-300/2.8 S ready for delivery - if it has to be f/2.8, that would deliver longer range and probably be not much heavier.

[Deleted User]

I don't know that I agree entirely (having just bought the beast) - this image is a fairly good example of what can be done at f/4 (not the 70-200 f/4 - it wasn't out when this shot was taken)



D3s 1/125s f4 70-200 @ 125mm ISO 7200

pippigurl

Question to those who have purchased...did you add the RT-1 tripod ring? Pretty pricey little number. If not are there any third party suggestions?

JJ_SO

Yeah, I did. And I feel very stupid for that. It's nearly useless, although nicely designed. The lens is so lightweight that the ring is no benefit. Before I had a 28-300, that's nearly the same weight and you have to live without that collar ring.

Only thing might be changing from portrait to landscape orientation, but for that I don't carry with me or buy another quick release plate. Aren't there some collar rings with Arca Swiss profile?

donaldejose

I did not buy that ring along with my 70-200 f4 because I though I would be using it hand held almost all the time and if I ever did put it on a tripod it was relatively light so I could just secure the body to the tripod.

PB_PM

The tripod ring there to create balance, and smoother handling on a tripod. I would hardly call it useless particularly if you use a gimbel setup.

pippigurl

JJ...yes is the answer to your question . There is a thread farther down the forum page concerning Arca Swiss plates.

Tabazan

Ok, received the F4 this morning.

On D3s, F4 and at 200, seems very sharp on first "quick" shots.
VR is stunning. You feel just like it simply blocks everything.

Look and feel very strong. Well manufactured (Thaïland).

See : www.wild-fields.com

JJ_SO

The tripod ring there to create balance, and smoother handling on a tripod. I would hardly call it useless particularly if you use a gimbel setup.

But I dare to call it useless. I made some shots with a tripod with and without collar ring. I will redo this with the new tripod but same settings. And I saw sharper images without the collar. My concern is, the surface of the lens the collar fits to, is plastic, not metal. The source of the vibrations would be the shutter and even more the mirror. And packing them not directly to the tripod head but with some distance to it can bring minor movement to the whole thing. But that's my guessing, I'll try to figure out the "truth" that weekend when getting a new ball head.

And as for the "balance" issue: thank you for mentioning that, I will then also compare the setting with the ring or with a rail under the body. Because the balance variies, depending which body I adapt to the lens, a rail is needed to set that in balance. Or a counterweight like the spring of some video heads.

[Deleted User]

I've finally been able to actually use the lens today - I haven't had time to really examine the images closely, but wide open, hand held they look pretty decent to me.
This image is slightly cropped from the original.

70mm 124/s f/4 ISO 5000

While this one is about 1/4 of the original image

175mm 125/s f/4 ISO 3200

[Deleted User]

Question to those who have purchased...did you add the RT-1 tripod ring? Pretty pricey little number. If not are there any third party suggestions?

Not likely at that price!
(However, I did order a Chinese copy....probably get thrown off the forum for admitting that!! - My way of looking at it is that I'll probably never use it, so why 'invest' in something so expensive - in the unlikely event I need on, I've only spent 25$)

Golf007sd

@pippigurl Have a look at what RRS has going for the 70-200 F/4.

[Deleted User]

@Golf007sd - yeah I usually visit that site when I'm feeling a bit down and need a serious laugh...

JJ_SO

And? What have they going? ;;) As far as I can see, you get a lens for 100$. Or the same for 195$.
Sorry Golf, sometimes RRR are a joke (so am I). They're just not showing the whole thing. And the tube to fit the collar on, is still plastic with a hollow noise when you tick on it.

Golf007sd

I know what you mean JJ_SO...not sure what RRS has coming for the new 70-200 f/4. I would say the best thing to do is give then a call and see what they have in mind.

donaldejose

darkslide: where did you find a Chinese copy of the tripod collar for the 70-200 f4? Sounds like a very good idea to me for a part I would rarely use.

[Deleted User]

@donaldejose PM sent