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

JJ_SO

I agree with that decision. Just wished, I wouldn't have been so naïve before ordering that collar together with the foot.

After all, the lens is superb even with this "flaw by design"

JJ_SO

Somehow the monster which ate my first post, had problems to digest it. Deleted because of double post.

donaldejose

Maybe the 70-200 was designed to be shot hand held since it has VRIII so the tripod collar was an afterthought in the design.

JJ_SO

Don't think so. The place for the collar was prepared for it. I just think, Nikon wanted to cut costs and did a more than necessary. Maybe there were inputs of other users like "I'm hardly ever using the collar, could you make one to be detached if not needed?". Dunno, but they performed a bad job with this junction.

Edit: On second thought you could be right as well.

PB_PM

The body design of the rear of the lens is a little odd, but I doubt adding the collar was an afterthought.

It is also possible that it is your copy of the lens that is a fault here. To be honest hearing that there is plastic in the barrel of a lens that expensive, where the collar mounts, is kind of odd to begin with. Just another reason to consider a third party F2.8 zoom over the F4 Nikkor.

JJ_SO

:-/ The VR of the f/4 is better than the one of f/2.8. It's no problem to shoot from tripod without collar, the lens is only halfweight but performs similiar. Many of the new lenses have plastic parts, and I think it's PEEK. That is one of the more expensive polymers. They only made it too thin. I understand they're using it, it's only half of aluminum density and very resistant to scratches.

I don't think it's my copy which has a fault, it's just "flaw by design". I look forward to Nikon's reply. I wanted that lens and am happy with it. If I'd had to look for f/2.8, I would wait for the new Sigma 120-300/2.8 with 100mm extra.

PB_PM

What does it matter if the VR is one stop better? That still wont freeze the action. For long exposures a tripod is still required, regardless of the VR. I just don't see the advantage, other than price and weight.

So you'd pay an extra $1500-$2000 for 100mm, and extra weight over the 70-200mm? I guess it depends on how you plan to use it, but those lenses have totally different applications in my mind. Having shot entire sporting events with the 70-200mm F2.8 and the 300mm F4, they aren't even used for the same type of shot. To me losing the short end would be a pain.

JJ_SO

Not everybody shoots "action" with 70-200 and if it comes to freezing action, do you seriously think, one f-stop more will do the trick? Come on...

About the extra weight - Sigma seems to see it as some kind of secret, they still don't announce the weight. Too, I said, if I need f/2.8 - but I don't. I'd need a bit more but that's just not possible at reasonable prices, so I try to make the best out of what I have. So for the shorts I have 85/1.4 and for longer f/2.8 would not be enough for me to "freeze action".

What do you call "long exposure"? Please feel free to try 1/20 at 190mm freehand and make it look like this 100% crop. It's just: a friend and me tried both lenses, his f/2.8 VRII and my f/4 VRIII (or whatever they call it) and we didn't get the same sharpness when both of us tried both lenses. He was impressed, so am I - you're right, fast movement is no case for VR, but counting down the f-stops... Nikon says "up to 5 EV", that would be something like f/1.2.
img src="http://sojujo.smugmug.com/Other/NR/i-ZK4JWCV/0/M/70-200_VR_1-20_-M.jpg" />
I found that hard to believe and tried to confuse the VR or make things harder for it. I just didn't manage so far but just wait

Edit: Why are links to pictures so unreliable? I did the same as I otherwise did before.

PB_PM

One F stop can make a difference, in my experience. In a sporting event at night it can mean the difference between 1/500s and 1/640s. That might not sound like much, but it could mean the difference between freezing the ball and it being a blur.

Long exposure to me = longer than 1/2s.

JJ_SO

I don't believe it. The difference between 1/500 and 1/600 or even 1/1000 is just somebody threw or kicked the ball harder to make it look blurred.

PB_PM

Believe what you like, but it is true.

JJ_SO

Then PROOF it! please ^:)^

PB_PM

I'm done speaking with you, it's not worth my time.

JJ_SO

Right, when it comes to proof some phrases, it's always safer to draw back.

PB_PM

And just to "Proof it" (prove it would be the correct statement in this case )
Notice the ball blurred at 1/500s.

JJ_SO

Now please decide, is it worth your time or not? I'd like to discuss that speed difference thing with you and learn as well some things I took for granted (not my wrong word )

I think, the ball is visible and the dynamics, too - I don't think it would gain a better impression with a frozen ball in mid-air.

PB_PM

Sorry, sometimes I get frustrated with your posts, due to some of the language you use, but I need to keep in mind you are not a native English speaker.

In this case the shutter speed isn't an issue, the effect works. I'm just saying that having an extra stop allows me to control how burred the ball will be. If I want to emphasis speed I use a longer shutter.

JJ_SO

I'm not trying to frustrate you on purpose, believe me. Maybe I shhuuudd do some spelling mistakes from time to time, just to remind of my language handicap? Have you any idea how it is to write in foreign languages with lots of uncertainty how the words will feel like? Anyway, at 3 a.m. I call it a day now, good night.

PB_PM

No worries.

[Deleted User]

This is a REALLY interesting argument guys :-@ care to have it somewhere else?

Msmoto

Let's remember there are lots of opinions. Best if we all just share our thoughts and not get into what is called "cross-talk".

donaldejose

I am in the process of photographing a season of HS basketball for the team using f4 lenses and f2.8 lenses and ISO's ranging from 2,500 to 6,400. The light varies court to court and even by much more than one stop at different places on the same court. The speed of the player and the movement of the ball also varies. Sometimes 1/250 sec can freeze action, but usually it takes 1/320th to 1/640th of a second. Sometimes, even that isn't enough as a hand or head is still blurred. Sometimes I can shoot at f4 or f3.2 but other times I really need f2.8. I find that I tend to save my new 70-200 f4 lens for afternoon games where light is increased by some daylight coming through windows or for brighter lit gyms and go back to my old 80-200 f2.8 for night games in older HS gyms.

PB_PM

That is my experience as well. I could use the 300mm F4 till the light started to drop, then I'd have to switch to the 70-200mm F2.8.

Tabazan

Er ... one thing I don't understand :
Tried the 70-200 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 at 200mm on my D3s, and there's a difference in focal (bigger subject) just like a DX vs Fx ???

[Deleted User]

You're imagining it.