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

JJ_SO

Don't think so. Both have constant dimensions when zooming or focusing and also constant aperture. So, at some place there has to be a difference. I'd guess, the f/2.8 shows smaller subjects than the f/4?

Does it matter much?

Msmoto

@ Tabazan

Lens focal length are only an approximation. I am not certain but I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is long on the 70mm end...more like 75 or 80mm perhaps. I remember a complaint some time ago about this. But the point is that at the long end, 200mm there could be a slight image size difference. Maybe as much as 10%. I would like to hear if others have observed anything like this or am I imagining it... :-S

donaldejose

Tabazan: 200mm f4 and 200mm f2.8 on FX are the same 200mm and should produce identical size images. Something must be wrong, like one lens mistakenly was not set to 200mm.

PB_PM

There are some marginal differences due to the nature of IF (internally focusing lenses), But that would only be noticeable at minimum focusing distance though.

donaldejose

But none of the small differences people are speaking about would equate to a size difference similar to DX v. FX as was indicated. Only a mistaken mm setting on one of the lenses would produce that much difference.

[Deleted User]

Check that the Full/Infinity to 3m switch is on FULL perhaps... (On both lenses please)

[Deleted User]

As promised, but sadly not the f/4 - there were 176 candles, but sadly I needed the extra stop so this is with the f/2.8



D3s 70-200 @ 200mm 1/45s f/2.8 ISO 8000

shawnino

Excellent image, Darkslide, ... that it was done in brutal conditions, well, magnifique et merveilleux.

Golf007sd

@JJ_SO Please note the shot that darkslide just posted. It is in these type of situations that the additional stop comes in handy. In addition, note the ISO, even though it is still high, with the f/4 one will probably have to raise even more.

[Deleted User]

Here's another one (as you've been so complimentary!!) And whilst I agree with a lot that Golf007sd says, I have to say I'm not entirely sure that the D4 will automatically outclass the D3s at Hi-ISO...but I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong (Je lance le defi!!)



D3s 70-200 @ 200mm 1/90s f/2.8 ISO 8000

Golf007sd

@darkslide the D4's ISO in relation to the D3s will be marginal. The key here is the performance of the 70-200 2.8 vs. it's brother: the f/4. Despite the advantage of the F/4's VR, IMHO the 2.8 version will produce a more rewarding image. Thanks for sharing these images with us. It helps us all make better judgment on what one can expect from these two fine lenses, as well as their limitations...given a setting.

[Deleted User]

@Golf007sd I agree. I personally don't think that there's a lot of difference between the different 'vintages' of VR - any VR is better than none, but even the original (as in this case) works extremely well. Last night was not an easy shoot as the audience nearby could easily hear the shutter and I didn't want to disturb them - I had to pick my moments, hoping that there would be A: enough dialogue to hide the sound of the shutter, and B: a long enough pause in the movement to get everyone sharp! (Knowing that the shutter speed would be painfully slow)

I think I've cracked it on a few of the series!! (He said modestly...)

JJ_SO

@JJ_SO Please note the shot that darkslide just posted. It is in these type of situations that the additional stop comes in handy. In addition, note the ISO, even though it is still high, with the f/4 one will probably have to raise even more.

I feel a bit misunderstood. I'm not saying, f/4 is a better lens than f/2.8 - it's only lighter and less expensive. Although the latter one makes only 20% if one got the useless tripod collar from Nikon - but only then the price comparison is including all details. And the avantage of less weight goes hand in hand with the disadvantage of less tough tubes, not only the tripod fixation position.
Both shots are wonderful and of great expression.
Just be aware - and only darkslide knows that - if the action could be freezed at 1/45, one f-stop more would be exactly 1/20. My experience is, 1/20 is doable if you can get the shot in the moment the faces are relatively calm. I don't want to compete or anything with darkslides excellent stageshot, I just like to state, it's not only his lens/camera but also a lot of experience in situations like this.

And here's what's possible (in the better circumstances) with the f/4:

D7000, 6400ISO (and I don't care about the noise ), 200mm, 1/15, f/4

My recommendation for silent situations goes clearly for D7000 and D600 - no other Nikon will be as silent as them, except the point'n'shoot or the 1 Series which aren't made for ISO beyond 3200, I guess?

Edit: The Quiet mode on these two bodies really deserves to be called so, while the D800 is just a s loud. No wonder - while I was testing my tripod combinations I found out the movement of the body due to shutter vibration is maybe 1/3 of the movement of D800 with same lens, same tripod head, same legs. darkslide, try to get one rented for your next shooting. I'm still observing the price of D600 although the dust issues.
Edit off.

And my experience with lowlight shooting is: if you dance on such a small edge, you can't rely on only one f-stop more. There's a good reason Nikon offers as well a 200/2 The camera needs to have super ISO skills, you need to know how to expose, you need to know your gear and your own skills, too. Then you get, with lots of lost, blurred / out of focus / wrong moments shots constantly more and better pictures out of these situations. And the reactions to these shots are rewarding as well as my own feeling about "this time everything was in place at the right time". And I always "underexpose" - I know the D7000 tends to make the pictures too bright, so as standard correction with matrix metering I have between -0.3 and -1. In dark situations I go down to -1.5/-1.7 which for my taste works better than no correction. I don't want to have blank highlights in a face and in such light conditions, there's not much information in the shadow areas worth to be kept.

[Deleted User]

@JJ_SO Wow 700mm - where were you when you took the picture? Zurich? )

JJ_SO

Darn... "> Corrected it.

[Deleted User]

@JJ_SO I agree with pretty much everything you say (I have to, otherwise I'll get thrown out...!) but the 'Quiet' mode is useless in these situations. The delay inherent with the slow mirror rising etc. loses any reactivity and when I'm waiting a split second for the action to stop, or a facial expression to change, I lose the shot.Believe me, I've tried it...

I've found some thick neoprene sheeting - similar to what they make scuba divers wet suits fromand I'm going to try to make a 'blimp' to cover the camera - yesterday evening was just too frustrating with the shutter noise.

JJ_SO

Did you try it with D7000 / D600?

I never had a missed, "too late" shot with the D7000, but maybe I was just lucky. I just saw you're using D3s and like the D800 it's more the "whammo, got the shot, stand back everybody" feedback tupe of camera.

[Deleted User]

Nope - I've never tried it with the D600 simply because I would never use that camera in these situations - sure, the sensor is 'ok' but not up to the standard I'm now expecting from the D3s. I find the D800 is fine up to about 6400 ISO (yes, it's only half a stop less sensitive, I agree!) but over and above that, the noise becomes more apparent. You're not particularly bothered by the noise - I am, as some of these shots may be used for billboard type poster sized images.

JJ_SO

It was only a suggestion / question. Instead of creating a "blimp", which draws more attention and is not so easy for lens-changing, a quieter body would be my preference. And since I really can't say a thing about sensor comparison, in that case the more discreet camera wins for my purposes.

[Deleted User]

"For your purposes" - that's the key phrase here. Changing lenses could possibly be a chore, but then as I wouldn't have my 'sterile environment' with me, I'd be tempted to stay with one lens. (The last phrase was 'tongue in cheek' before anyone goes for my throat)

The fact that I am in the 'dark bit' off stage when I'm taking my photographs, I hardly think the fact that the audience can't read the serial number on the camera body would be a problem. Despite being 'slightly' overweight I'm almost transparent...

Lastly there isn't a camera body with the sensitivity of the D3s which has a quieter shutter/mechanism.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the input be it a suggestion or a question :-)

CaptMike

Here is a review to the 70-200 2.8G VR II

Not that great of a review
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff

donaldejose

Has anyone tried cutting a hole for the lens and cutting access to needed controls and viewfinder in a camera case like these as a way of quieting sound? It seems one may be able to use these type of cases as a fitted sound shield but I don't know how effective it would be. It the past I have covered a camera with a towel to muffle sound but a fitted case might be better.

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-CSLR-50-Neoprene-Stretchy-Camera/dp/B005NBU6G4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358869526&sr=8-1&keywords=neoprene+camera+case

http://www.amazon.com/DuraNeoprene-FlexArmor-Sleeve-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0037TEO3K/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358869526&sr=8-2&keywords=neoprene+camera+case

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-CSLR-60-Neoprene-Stretchy-Mid-range/dp/B005OA6276/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1358869526&sr=8-8&keywords=neoprene+camera+case

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Neoprene-Camera-Sleeve-Battery/dp/B003Y5UX8W/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1358869950&sr=8-4&keywords=neoprene+camera+case+for+Nikon+D700

[Deleted User]

mods please delete

[Deleted User]

mods please delete - can't imagine why there was a 12 hour delay before this message was posted...

Correlli

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 ???

I think this might be due to the internal focussing. In some reviews I read that the f/2.8 at 200 mm and close distances has got a viewing angle that is closer to 135 mm. I can't remember where I read it but if you want I can look for it again.

I did not read anything about the f/4 yet but at least it could be possible that it shows a different viewing angle.

At infinity both should show the same field of view.